Liability for a horse

Dutch law protects victims against damage caused by the animal’s own energy. In the case of a horse, this refers to the unpredictable behaviour that is inherent to the animal itself. Think of a horse being startled, bucking, rearing or kicking. In principle, the keeper of the horse is liable for that damage. Sometimes liability does not rest with the owner, but with the party using the horse in the course of business, such as a riding school or another professional operator.

That sounds clear enough, but the next question is often this: did the victim also contribute to the occurrence of the damage? And if so, what does that mean for the compensation?

In horse riding injury cases, a 50–50 split often seems to be the starting point, but it doesn’t have to be the end point.

What is contributory negligence

Contributory negligence is not limited to situations where someone has clearly done something wrong. It can also involve circumstances that, under the law, are considered to fall within the victim’s own sphere of risk. The court first looks at the parties’ respective causal contributions. In simple terms, it asks which circumstances on both sides contributed to the damage.

After that, the court may apply a fairness correction. At that stage, factors such as the seriousness of the injury, the age of the victim, the existence of insurance and the seriousness of any mistakes made can play a role.

That distinction matters. The court first determines how responsibility should be divided on a causal basis. Only then does it consider whether that outcome is fair.

The rule from Nieuw Amstelland

In 2002, the Dutch Supreme Court laid down an important rule for riding lesson cases in the Manege Nieuw Amstelland judgment. The Court made clear that the simple fact that someone voluntarily gets on a horse does not automatically mean that the liability of the owner or riding school disappears altogether.

At the same time, the Supreme Court also held that in this kind of situation, the unpredictable behaviour of the horse will often partly be for the rider’s own account. How much exactly depends on the content of the agreement and the other circumstances of the case.

That sounds like room for a tailored assessment. In lower court case law, however, judges in riding lesson situations often arrive fairly quickly at a causal division of 50-50. In other words, the riding school bears half of the loss and, in principle, the victim bears the other half.

Why that 50-50 division can feel unfair

This is where the tension lies. An inexperienced rider taking a lesson or joining a one-off outdoor ride is not in the same position as a professional riding school that works with horses every day, earns money from that activity and can insure itself against the risks involved.

Even so, many judgments treat the rider’s voluntary decision to mount the horse as such an important contributing factor that the damage assessment begins with a 50-50 split. Only after that does the court consider whether fairness requires an adjustment.

This can also be seen in a 2021 judgment of the Court of Appeal of ’s-Hertogenbosch. A very inexperienced participant in a one-off forest ride suffered severe brain injuries. The court first adopted a 50-50 division, but then adjusted it to 70-30 in her favour. Relevant factors included the fact that the organiser operated for profit, had insurance in place and allowed very inexperienced riders to take part in outdoor rides. The seriousness of the injuries also played an important role.

What else courts take into account

The case law shows that much of the real movement happens in the fairness correction. Courts then look at factors such as the rider’s level of experience, the victim’s age, the seriousness of the injury and whether the liable party is insured.

In the case of children, you would expect age to carry considerable weight. Yet that does not always happen consistently. In some cases, the damage division is significantly adjusted in favour of a child. In others, hardly any adjustment is made, even where the injuries are severe. That makes the outcome of these cases difficult to predict.

Outside the context of riding lessons, there is also no completely fixed line. Sometimes voluntary interaction with a horse leads to contributory negligence, for example when breaking in a horse or separating fighting stallions. In other cases, familiarity with horses or voluntary care of a horse is not enough for contributory negligence to be established.

What this means for victims

The key lesson from this case law is that a defence based on contributory negligence in horse riding injury cases does not always have to lead to the same outcome. In lesson situations, 50-50 often seems to be the starting point, but it does not have to be the end point.

That is precisely why it is important not to focus only on the fairness correction, but also on the first step: the causal division itself. What exactly had been agreed? How experienced was the rider? Was there a professional provider involved? Did the incident happen during an outdoor ride, a lesson or a different type of activity? Which objective circumstances played a role?

The better these facts are set out, the greater the chance that the court will not simply default to a standard division.

What this means for you

If you have suffered injuries caused by a horse, it is important to have your case assessed carefully from a legal perspective. Not only does the liability of the owner, riding school or professional user matter, but also the way your own role is weighed in law.

At AVB Law, we therefore always look at both steps under Article 6:101 of the Dutch Civil Code. First, we assess the division of causal contributions. Then we consider whether the outcome should be adjusted on grounds of fairness. That is often where important gains can still be made.