Dog bite and personal injury: who is liable, and what are you entitled to?

Written by Onur Arslan, personal injury lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the legal practice areas register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Last updated: 31 August 2026.

Who is liable if a dog bites?

The keeper of the dog is in principle liable for the damage the animal causes, even where nothing can be held against them personally and even where the dog has never done anything before. That is set out in article 6:179 of the Dutch Civil Code: "The keeper of an animal is liable for the damage caused by the animal, unless liability under the previous section would have been absent had he had control of the animal’s conduct by which the damage was caused." Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code, article 179.

This is strict liability, and that is precisely the point on which almost everyone is mistaken. People think they have to prove that the owner was careless: that they had not kept the dog on a lead, that they knew the animal was aggressive, that they had left the gate open. That is not necessary. You only have to show that the dog bit you, that the party addressed is the keeper, and what damage you suffer as a result.

The reason for that heavy liability is the unpredictability of an animal. The District Court of Amsterdam put it as follows: "The rationale of this strict liability is the danger inherent in the animal’s own energy and the unpredictable element contained in it. For this it applies that the animal must have caused the damage independently." (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:4843). Anyone who keeps an animal accepts that risk — and it lies with them, not with the victim. In a more recent ruling the same court puts it even more directly: the owner must compensate the damage "even where no personal blame can be attached to them" (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7029).

In practice this means that the owner’s answer — "he never does that", "he was startled", "he has never been aggressive before" — is in principle legally irrelevant. That defence is about fault, and fault is not the test here.

Who is the ‘keeper’: the owner, the dog walker or the sitter?

The keeper is the person who keeps the dog for themselves — usually the owner, but not automatically the person who had the animal on the lead at the moment of the bite. The dog-walking service, the neighbour who is looking after the dog or the family member who has it for a weekend are in principle not the keeper: they keep the animal for someone else.

The District Court of North Holland summarised that: "Under the law, those who keep the animal for themselves are regarded as the keeper. That is usually the owner, but it can also be otherwise." (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2021:877). The District Court of Gelderland emphasised that it really is about possession and not about ownership: article 6:179 of the Dutch Civil Code places strict liability "expressly on the keeper of an animal and not on the owner of an animal" (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2018:3231).

Who	Liable under 6:179?
An owner who keeps the dog themselves	yes — the standard situation
Two partners who keep the dog together	yes, both; co-keepers are jointly and severally liable (art. 6:180(1) of the Dutch Civil Code)
A dog-walking service, sitter, boarding address, neighbour	in principle not as keeper; can be liable for their own carelessness (art. 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code)
A shelter that has taken possession of the animal	possibly yes; depends on whether possession has been transferred
A dog used in the course of a business	no — then the person running the business (art. 6:181 of the Dutch Civil Code, see below)

Note the burden of proof. If you hold the wrong party liable, your claim founders on a formal point while you were right on the merits. Anyone asserting that someone is the keeper must in principle prove it (article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure). In a Rotterdam case that was precisely the heart of the dispute: the victim asserted that the person addressed was the keeper, that person disputed it, and the burden of proof lay with the victim (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:348). So always note the name and address of the person who keeps the dog, and not only of the person who happened to be walking alongside. Where there are several keepers, they are jointly and severally liable (article 6:180(1) of the Dutch Civil Code): you can claim the whole loss from one of them.

What if the dog is used for business purposes?

Where the animal is used in the course of a business, liability shifts from the keeper to the person running that business. That is article 6:181(1) of the Dutch Civil Code: where the animals referred to in, among others, article 179 are "used in the course of a business, then the liability under articles […] 179 rests on the person running that business". Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code, article 181.

The Supreme Court explained why that shift exists: it rests on the fact "that the injured person should not be burdened with the difficulties inherent in investigating and proving the identity of the debtor, and on the other hand on the unity of the enterprise" (ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP1475). So you do not have to work out who within a business is the legal keeper; you address the business. Think of a guard dog of a security company, dogs at a dog school, kennel or breeder, a farm dog, or horses at a riding school — the Supreme Court case concerned a riding-school horse.

There is a limit. Not every animal that happens to be on business premises is thereby "used in the course of a business"; the entrepreneur’s pet dog that comes along to the office is as a rule not. Where business use is not accepted, liability continues to rest on the keeper (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2018:3231). For you this matters above all because a business almost always has liability insurance, and a private individual does not always.

When does the reliance on strict liability fail?

Only where the dog’s conduct, had the keeper had control of it, would not have been wrongful — the classic example is the guard dog that attacks a burglar. That is the so-called "unless" proviso at the end of article 6:179 of the Dutch Civil Code. It is a narrow exception: there must be a justification, such as self-defence or the defence of property against an intruder.

The District Court of North Holland described it as follows: liability is absent "in the case of a justification which means that, assuming the keeper had had control of the animal, there would still be no wrongfulness. For example, the guard dog that attacks a burglar does not make the keeper liable." (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2021:877). In addition there is a second situation in which article 6:179 does not operate: where the animal did not act of its own energy. If the dog acted on a human command, there is no longer any question of its own energy and the case has to be assessed under the ordinary law of tort. The Court of Appeal of Arnhem held in a case about a police dog that the bite, even where the dog bit in a way it had not been trained to, "is the result of the command and not of the dog’s own energy" (ECLI:NL:GHARN:2010:BN0684).

That last point is rarely unfavourable for victims: anyone who sets a dog on someone is as a rule directly liable under article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, and moreover possibly commits a criminal offence.

What is not a valid exception, and yet is constantly put forward: "the dog has never done this before", "he was startled", "I had him properly on the lead". These are arguments about fault; with strict liability they miss the point.

What if I provoked the dog myself? Contributory negligence

If you contributed to the incident arising, the duty to compensate can be reduced, but with serious injury the equitable correction often works in your favour. The basis is article 6:101(1) of the Dutch Civil Code: where the damage is also the result of a circumstance attributable to the injured person, the duty to compensate is reduced by apportioning the damage "in proportion to the extent to which the circumstances attributable to each have contributed to the damage, on the understanding that a different apportionment is made or the duty to compensate lapses entirely or remains intact if fairness so requires because of the differing seriousness of the faults committed or other circumstances of the case." Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code, article 101.

So that provision has two steps. First the causation assessment: to what extent have the circumstances on both sides contributed to the damage arising? That produces an apportionment, usually in percentages. Then the equitable correction: is that outcome fair, having regard to the differing seriousness of the faults committed and the other circumstances? The apportionment can thereby be adjusted or even lapse entirely, so that you are compensated for your full loss after all. At that first step it is expressly not only about blameworthy conduct: the District Court of Amsterdam considered in a dog bite case that it concerns "circumstances falling within [the claimant’s] risk that contributed to the accident arising", and therefore "not only conduct of [the claimant] for which she is at fault" (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:9169).

Circumstances put forward in practice as contributory negligence:

Circumstance	How it is generally viewed
Stroking an unknown dog without asking	can count, but rarely heavily with a dog in a public space
Ignoring a clear warning ("do not touch", "guard dog on duty")	weighs more heavily, certainly with a sign or an oral warning
Teasing, hitting or cornering the animal	can lead to a substantial reduction
Entering a closed yard or pen without permission	weighs heavily; the "unless" proviso also comes into view here
Jumping between two fighting dogs	often some contributory negligence, but the equitable correction plays a strong part here

Why the equitable correction usually works in your favour with serious injury. On one side is a keeper on whom a statutory strict liability rests and who could have insured against it; on the other a victim with permanent injury and a reaction that is understandable in itself. The more serious the injury and the less blameworthy your conduct, the more reason there is to adjust the causation assessment. An insurer that puts a substantial contributory negligence percentage to you without substantiation is simply skipping that second step — a concrete and challengeable point.

My child has been bitten: does contributory negligence apply then too?

Children occupy a special position on the contributory negligence question: their conduct is in principle far less readily held against them, and with young children the duty to compensate is in practice rarely if at all reduced. Children are, after all, attracted to dogs, do not grasp the danger and cannot adjust their behaviour accordingly.

Article 6:164 of the Dutch Civil Code provides: "Conduct of a child who has not yet reached the age of fourteen cannot be attributed to them as a tort." Source: wetten.overheid.nl, Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code, article 164. In addition the equitable correction in article 6:101 leaves room to arrive at a different apportionment precisely with young children, because a child’s limited insight into the danger and limited ability to act accordingly mean that the child is barely at fault.

What this means in practice:

• The argument "your child should not have stroked the dog" is as a rule weak. That a child does that is foreseeable; the keeper of an animal that cannot cope with it has to prevent it.
• The parents’ role is sometimes raised. An insurer may contend that there was insufficient supervision; that defence is in essence directed at the parents and by no means always succeeds.
• Think about the long term. With a child the medical end state is only reached years later, and a scar grows with the body. Settling early is almost always disadvantageous.
• Do not forget the limitation period. With a minor victim it only starts to run on reaching majority — see below.

Children moreover regularly develop, after a biting incident, a lasting fear of dogs that limits daily life. That is a consequence to be compensated in its own right and must be recorded in the file, not waved away as "it will pass".

What damage can you claim after a dog bite?

You can claim both your financial loss and your non-material damages: medical costs, lost income, help at home and travel costs, plus compensation for the pain, the scars, the fear and the loss of enjoyment of life. With a dog bite the material part is structurally underestimated, because the wound itself is often closed within a few weeks while the consequences are not.

Head of loss	What to think of
Medical costs	the excess, stitches, antibiotics, tetanus or rabies prophylaxis, wound care, scar treatment, plastic surgery
Loss of income	sick leave, hours missed, assignments missed by the self-employed
Domestic help	what you temporarily cannot do with a bandaged hand or arm
Travel costs and damaged property	to practitioners; clothing, glasses, phone, bicycle
Psychological treatment	anxiety symptoms, avoidance, PTSD
Non-material damages	pain, fear, scars, loss of enjoyment of life
Out-of-court costs	the reasonable costs of your lawyer and medical adviser (art. 6:96(2) of the Dutch Civil Code)

How much in non-material damages do you get after a dog bite? There is no tariff per bite wound. Non-material damages are assessed on an equitable basis under article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code and calibrated against earlier awards; what is decisive is the nature and seriousness of the injury, its place on the body, the length of recovery, what permanently remains of it and what that means in your life. On this page we deliberately give no amounts: what circulates on the internet is almost always out of date or taken out of context, and a realistic estimate is only possible once the injury has stabilised medically. *Read on: non-material damages in personal injury cases — amount, calculation and procedure.*

Two consequences are forgotten most often. The first is fear: many victims avoid streets, parks and visits to people with a dog after a bite. That is a real limitation and it counts. The second is infection: an infection or a damaged tendon can turn recovery from weeks into months. Have both recorded in your medical file — what is not in it does not exist in the negotiation.

Scars and permanent disfigurement: why you should not settle too quickly

With scars it is not the medical seriousness but the visibility and the permanence that weigh heaviest, and because a scar continues to develop for months or years, you have to wait before settling until the end state has been reached. Dog bites are moreover often in the places that matter most in this respect: face, neck, forearms and hands.

In an Amsterdam case a child suffered three bite wounds to the lower leg; the wounds healed, "but [the child] has permanent scars, one of which is crater-shaped" (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7029). That is the heart of it: the wound heals, the scar remains.

What drives the assessment:

Factor	Explanation
Location	face, neck and hands are permanently visible and weigh heaviest
Nature and size	length, width, difference in colour, raised or indeed indented tissue
Development	hypertrophy or keloid formation makes the appearance permanently less favourable
Scope for correction	whether corrective surgery can improve the appearance, and at what cost
Age	with a child the consequences last longest and the scar grows with them
Functional consequences	nerve or tendon injury, loss of sensation, restricted movement
Psychological consequences	shame, avoidance of the swimming pool, sport and new contacts

In practice: photograph the scar repeatedly, each time in comparable conditions — the same distance, the same light, with a ruler or a coin beside it as a reference, from the first treatment of the wound until the appearance is stable.

And then the most important rule: sign nothing while your situation is still changing. A settlement agreement with full and final discharge in principle closes the case definitively. If it then turns out that a correction is needed or that there is nerve damage, that is at your expense. Where there is doubt about the course, a precisely worded reservation can be included; a vague clause offers little protection.

The dog owner has liability insurance — and if there is none?

In most cases the settlement runs through the keeper’s private liability insurance, which as a rule covers damage caused by pets; if there is no insurance, the keeper remains personally liable. That last point is not a legal problem, but it is a practical one: a judgment against someone without assets yields little.

In practice you hold the keeper liable in writing and ask for the details of their liability insurer. They report the claim there — under their policy they are as a rule obliged to do so — after which the insurer takes over the handling. If they refuse, you can address them directly and if necessary issue a summons.

If there is no insurance, these are the routes that remain:

Route	Point to note
Claiming directly from the keeper	always possible; have it examined beforehand whether there is income or assets
A payment arrangement	with a private individual without assets often the realistic outcome; record it in writing
Your own legal expenses insurance	for the costs of assistance; note the cover for personal injury
Your own health insurance	for medical costs; your insurer can recover those from the keeper itself
Joining the criminal proceedings	only where there is a criminal offence, for example where the dog was deliberately set on someone
Violent Offences Compensation Fund	only for an intentional violent offence with serious injury; an ordinary biting incident does not fall under this

In the Amsterdam case already cited this was precisely the situation: the dog owner addressed "has no statutory liability insurance" (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7029). Liability was not in issue — the question was whether payment could be made. So have it assessed early whether litigating on is worthwhile; sometimes a well-recorded arrangement is wiser than an unenforceable judgment.

Does this apply to horses, cats and livestock too?

Article 6:179 of the Dutch Civil Code applies to every animal, not only to dogs: the keeper of a horse, a cat, a cow or any other animal is on the same basis in principle liable for the damage the animal causes. The statutory text simply speaks of "an animal".

• Horses. A large part of the case law on article 6:179 concerns horses: kicking, biting, being startled during a lesson or a ride out. Where a riding school or other business plays a part, liability often shifts to that business (article 6:181; ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP1475). Note the consequences of a participation or stabling agreement: contractual rules and article 6:179 can in principle apply alongside each other (ECLI:NL:HR:2001:AB1335).
• Cats. Scratching and biting fall under the same rule. A cat bite to a hand easily affects a tendon or joint and infects quickly.
• Livestock. Loose or escaped livestock likewise falls under article 6:179; with an agricultural business article 6:181 is added.
• Dogs against each other. If your dog is bitten by another dog, its keeper is in principle liable for your vet’s costs (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:5434). That is property damage; for your own injury the rules in the rest of this page apply.

What should you do immediately after a dog bite?

Have the wound treated medically the same day, record everything with photographs, note the details of the keeper and of witnesses, and report the incident. In practice the first 48 hours determine how strong your case is later.

Immediately:

1. Have the wound assessed by the GP, the out-of-hours GP service or the emergency department — even with an apparently small wound. A dog bite is a contaminated wound and the risk of infection is considerable. Have your tetanus status checked; if it was an unknown dog or a bite abroad, also ask about rabies.
2. Make sure the incident goes into your medical file as a dog bite, with the date. That is later the evidence of how it happened.
3. Photograph the wound before it is bandaged, and regularly after that — plus the dog and the place of the incident.
4. Note the keeper’s details: name, address, telephone number, and whether they have liability insurance. Ask expressly whether they are the keeper or were walking the animal for someone else.
5. Note witnesses with name and telephone number; after a week they are often untraceable.

In the days that follow:

1. Report the incident to the police and to the municipality. Municipalities have powers after a biting incident under their local by-laws — think of an order to keep the dog on a lead or muzzled. A report moreover produces an independent record of how it happened.
2. Hold the keeper liable in writing. Describe how it happened, expressly reserve your right to compensation and ask for their insurance details. With that you also interrupt the limitation period.
3. Keep the evidence and maintain a loss file: damaged clothing, receipts, invoices, travel costs, hours missed and the help you receive from others.
4. Do not enter into discussion about amounts before you know what your injury is going to do, and sign nothing.

How long do I have? Limitation

For personal injury there is one period: five years, counted from the day after the day on which you became aware both of the damage and of the person liable — and the absolute limit of twenty years that applies to other claims for damages expressly does not apply to injury and death claims. That follows from article 3:310(5) of the Dutch Civil Code, which departs on this point from the general rule in subsection 1.

Two particular points are often relevant with a dog bite. Was the victim a minor? Then under the same subsection the five-year period only starts to run on the day after they reach majority. So a child bitten at the age of six in principle has until the age of twenty-three — generous, but the evidence evaporates in the meantime: witnesses move, photographs go missing. Was there a criminal offence? If the dog was deliberately set on someone, the claim against the perpetrator is not barred under article 3:310(4) of the Dutch Civil Code for as long as the right to prosecute has not lapsed.

Interrupting the period is simple and sensible. A written notice in which you unequivocally reserve your right to performance in principle starts a fresh period; keep the proof of dispatch. If you are unsure whether your case is still in time, have that assessed before you do anything else: a time-barred claim cannot be saved, however strong the case is on the merits.

What does a personal injury lawyer cost in a dog bite case?

If another party’s liability is established, the reasonable costs of your legal assistance are in principle for the account of the liable party, as a separate head of loss alongside your other loss. The basis is article 6:96(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, which treats as financial loss, among other things, the reasonable costs of establishing damage and liability and the reasonable costs of obtaining satisfaction out of court. A double reasonableness test applies to this: it must be reasonable that you incur costs, and the extent of those costs must be reasonable.

So a dog bite case with acknowledged liability in principle costs you nothing. For as long as liability has not been acknowledged, there is as yet no party paying; we make arrangements about that phase in advance. If you have legal expenses insurance, you may choose your own lawyer in judicial or administrative proceedings (article 4:67 of the Financial Supervision Act).

What a specialist lawyer adds here is no more complicated than this: addressing the right party, mapping the loss in full instead of only the doctor’s costs, assessing a contributory negligence defence on its merits, and substantiating the non-material damages with comparison cases that genuinely resemble yours. With us you can have your situation assessed free of charge before you decide anything.

About this advice

Arslan Advocaten handles personal injury cases from offices in The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Tilburg and Eindhoven. We assess your situation free of charge, work with independent medical advisers and assist victims of injury caused by animals, road accidents, accidents at work, medical negligence and violent offences. Besides Dutch we speak Turkish and Polish.

Call 070 450 0300 or send us your question through the contact form. We will let you know where you stand and what the next step is.

This page gives general information and is not legal advice about your own case. No rights can be derived from the principles set out here.

Read also: Personal injury caused by a horse (in Dutch)