Insurance

Horse Owner Liability When Your Vet Is Injured: What a German Federal Court Ruling Means for You

If your horse injures your veterinarian during treatment, you, as the owner, could be held liable in Germany. Discover what the Federal Court of Justice has ruled on this matter and why liability and insurance coverage are two distinct questions.

Equidara editorial team · 22 October 2026 · 3 min read

Horse Owner Liability When Your Vet Is Injured: What a German Federal Court Ruling Means for You
AI-generated image

Yes, in Germany, as a horse owner, you can be held liable to a veterinarian your horse injures during treatment. The Federal Court of Justice has ruled on this, provided the liability requirements of § 833 Sentence 1 BGB are met. Whether your animal owner liability insurance covers such a claim is a separate matter, depending on your agreed insurance coverage.

The Case Before the Federal Court of Justice

In its ruling of March 17, 2009, the Federal Court of Justice addressed a case from Germany: A veterinarian suffered a comminuted fracture of his right thumb from a horse kick during a rectal temperature check. His lawsuit primarily sought compensation for alleged loss of earnings.

This does not imply that every claim made is fully justified. The court will examine on a case-by-case basis whether and to what extent liability exists.

For you as a horse owner, it's important to note: The injured person's profession does not automatically exclude your liability. According to the BGH, this applies to individuals who, for professional reasons, temporarily expose themselves to the animal's inherent danger without assuming complete control over the animal.

Animal Owner Liability According to § 833 Sentence 1 BGB

According to the BGH, an animal owner is liable to a veterinarian for injuries caused by the behavior of the treated animal, provided the conditions of § 833 Sentence 1 BGB are met. This limitation is crucial; not every injury during treatment automatically establishes a claim against the owner.

Animal owner liability is a form of strict liability. The BGH describes "acting at one's own risk" as a legal concept intended to exclude certain cases from this liability. This refers to cases where the damage is attributable to the actions of the injured party themselves rather than the animal's inherent danger, and therefore, liability appears inappropriate according to the purpose of the regulation.

Why "Acting at One's Own Risk" Is Not Always Sufficient

According to the BGH, a veterinarian undertaking treatment does not regularly lead to an exclusion of liability due to "acting at one's own risk." This applies when the vet exposes themselves to the animal's inherent danger based on a contractual agreement with the animal owner to work on the animal.

"Acting at one's own risk," according to the BGH, requires more: The person knows the specific circumstances of a concrete danger and still accepts an impending self-endangerment, and they do so without a compelling legal, professional, or moral reason.

In the case of treatment initiated by the animal owner, the BGH sees precisely such a compelling reason. This does not constitute contradictory behavior by the veterinarian. Animal owner liability is only completely excluded, according to the BGH, in exceptional cases where asserting the claim would violate good faith.

Contributory Causation Can Reduce the Claim

Whether a claim exists and how high it is are two separate questions. According to the BGH, misconduct by the veterinarian that contributed to the injury can reduce the claim under § 254 BGB.

Even the fact that the injured party exposed themselves to the animal's inherent danger is, according to the BGH, regularly only considered in the assessment under § 254 BGB. This involves the shares of causation and fault. This is different from a complete exclusion of liability from the outset.

Neither the veterinarian's professional experience nor the assumption of treatment alone answers the question of liability. And the extent of a justified claim cannot be derived from the injury alone.

This article explains the legal situation in Germany generally and does not constitute legal advice. If you wish to have a specific liability case assessed, please consult a lawyer.

Common questions

Can I, as a horse owner, be liable to a veterinarian?

Yes. According to the Federal Court of Justice, in Germany, you can be liable for injuries caused by the treated animal, provided the requirements of § 833 Sentence 1 BGB are met.

Does "acting at one's own risk" exclude liability during veterinary treatment?

According to the BGH, not regularly, if the veterinarian works on the animal due to a contractual agreement with the owner. Treatment initiated by the owner is a compelling reason to expose oneself to the animal's inherent danger.

Can a veterinarian's error reduce the claim?

Yes. According to the BGH, misconduct by the veterinarian that contributed to the injury can reduce the claim in Germany under § 254 BGB.

What damages were claimed in the decided case?

The veterinarian suffered a comminuted fracture of his right thumb from a horse kick during a rectal temperature check. His lawsuit primarily sought compensation for alleged loss of earnings.

Sources

  1. BGH, Urteil vom 17.03.2009 – VI ZR 166/08 (17.03.2009)

Written by Equidara editorial team. Last checked: 22 October 2026.

More on this topic

Related