From practice · Our own case · Injuries caused by animals
A dog bite or direct physical contact is not always necessary for liability for harm caused by a dog. In this case handled by Ömür Arslan, a dog chased a child. She fell and was injured. The District Court of The Hague held the person legally responsible as the dog’s possessor liable for the resulting loss.
What did the court decide?
The decision is dated 2 August 2023: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21220. The court applied Article 6:179 of the Dutch Civil Code. The decisive issue was that the animal’s behaviour caused the damage; physical contact was not required. The respondent did not appear in the proceedings.
The court declared that the accident-related loss had to be compensated in full and awarded €2,161.15 in costs of the partial-dispute proceedings. It did not quantify the total personal injury loss. To protect the child, we do not repeat the specific location, injury details or other unnecessarily identifying circumstances.
Why the animal’s behaviour matters
After an incident involving a dog, the first question is often whether someone was bitten. This case shows that the question may be too narrow. Chasing or unexpected movement can also cause a reaction that leads to a fall.
That does not mean every startled reaction automatically gives rise to compensation. There must be a sufficiently substantiated link between the animal’s behaviour and the damage. The circumstances remain important. Distinguish what you personally saw from what you later heard about the animal or its possessor.
Liability and the amount of loss are separate questions
A declaration of liability does not establish the extent of every consequence. Medical investigation, treatment and recovery may take time. Costs and practical limitations also require separate evidence.
The litigation costs mentioned above are therefore not compensation for the child’s pain and suffering. Nor does the decision prove that every loss was subsequently paid in full. These matters must be kept separate when describing the result.
The respondent did not appear
The respondent’s procedural position is part of an accurate account. The dog’s possessor did not defend the claim. We therefore do not present this as proceedings in which every conceivable counterargument was considered and rejected.
A different case may develop differently, for example where the facts are disputed or an exception is raised. A lawyer must assess the evidence and arguments on both sides. An earlier favourable decision does not guarantee the same outcome.
What information is useful to preserve?
The dog’s behaviour and the response to it. Describe the sequence: where was the animal, what did it do and when did the fall occur? Avoid filling in details afterwards.
Witnesses and available footage. Record who saw the incident and request preservation of existing camera footage. A witness’s own observations matter more than an agreed conclusion about blame.
The identity of the proper respondent. Knowing the name of someone standing near the dog does not settle every question about who can legally be held responsible. Keep contact details and correspondence with any insurer.
The consequences. Keep records of treatment, expenses and necessary assistance. Share a child’s medical information only for a defined purpose and through an agreed secure channel. Publishing a case study generally does not require describing the full medical history.
Frequently asked questions
Must the dog touch me before liability is possible?
No. This decision shows that behaviour without direct contact can cause damage. The causal connection must still be substantiated.
Does every fall near a dog qualify for compensation?
No. The animal’s behaviour, how the damage arose and the applicable legal requirements must be examined.
Does the decision specify compensation for pain and suffering?
No total personal injury award was calculated. The amount stated is for the proceedings.
Help with injuries caused by an animal
Related articles in Dutch discuss injuries caused by dogs and the separate horse-riding case. Arslan Advocaten assesses the circumstances and potential liability. You can provide initial details through our contact page.
Source and scope: District Court of The Hague, 2 August 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21220. The respondent did not appear; the claimed procedural costs were reduced. Subsequent proceedings and the final settlement of the loss have not been established. The illustration is symbolic and does not show the dog involved.
