Kommt es zu einer Auseinandersetzung zwischen mehreren Hunden, bei der eine Hundehalterin beim Trennungsversuch verletzt wird, haftet laut Amtsgericht München die Halterin der beteiligten Hunde gemäß § 833 German Civil Code Liability arises from strict liability even if the specific contribution of each individual animal to the damage cannot be determined. In assessing liability, an increased risk posed by animals can arise, in particular, if one party is walking two large dogs simultaneously, whereas the mere fact that one dog is not on a leash does not increase the risk posed by the animals if the other dogs were also off-leash at the time of the incident (Case No. 223 C 5188/25).

The plaintiff, a resident of Munich, was in a park in Munich on April 20, 2024, with her Beauceron dog. The dog was off-leash. The defendant, also from Munich, was in the park at the same time, initially walking her two Rhodesian Ridgeback dogs on leashes. Before the dogs began fighting, the defendant, for reasons that remain unclear, also released her dogs' leashes. The plaintiff attempted to separate the dogs. In doing so, she sustained injuries to her knee and the little finger of her right hand and had to cancel a booked vacation. She therefore demanded, among other things, reimbursement of cancellation costs amounting to €2,122 from the defendant, as well as reasonable compensation for pain and suffering. The plaintiff's dog was injured and required surgery. The defendant and her liability insurer pointed to the plaintiff's responsibility and refused to pay.

The Munich Local Court partially granted the claim and ordered the defendant to pay damages in the amount of €1,467.84 and pain and suffering compensation in the amount of €1,500. The court apportioned liability at one-third for the plaintiff and two-thirds for the defendant. The defendant was liable as the animal owner pursuant to Section 833. German Civil Code Regardless of whether the plaintiff was injured directly by her dog or by one of the defendant's dogs. § 833 German Civil Code This establishes strict liability, which applies even if the infringement of a legally protected interest is caused, at least in part, by the realization of specific or typical dangers inherent in the nature of the animal, or if there is even an indirect causal connection. Such an inherent danger of the animal materialized here, as it is undisputed that a scuffle took place between the parties' dogs at the time in question. This constitutes an interaction between the animals, which acted upon each other in accordance with their animal nature, until the plaintiff was injured. However, it must also be noted that the plaintiff's dog was also involved in the altercation in which the plaintiff and her dog were injured, and that the plaintiff herself intervened in the scuffle. The actual contribution of the dogs involved to the causation is disputed and could not be further clarified even within the framework of the parties' informal hearing. Therefore, considering all known circumstances, particularly the fact that the defendant owned two dogs involved in the altercation, the plaintiff's contributory negligence should be assessed at one-third. Since walking two large dogs simultaneously creates heightened pack dynamics, the specific animal-related danger posed by the defendant outweighs the plaintiff's. The danger posed by the plaintiff's dog was not increased by the fact that it was off-leash, because when the dogs ultimately clashed, the defendant's dogs were also off-leash, meaning the same dangers were present.

The specialist news in the information center is provided to you by the editorial team for Tax & Law at DATEV eG.