Liability and insurance in equine law in the Netherlands

Published on 6 February 2023 · Last updated 25 October 2026

In the Netherlands, the possessor (bezitter) of a horse is liable for the damage it causes, even without fault, unless he would not have been liable under the rules on fault had he controlled the horse’s behaviour himself (Article 6:179 Dutch Civil Code). If the horse is used in a business, such as a riding school, the business operator is liable (Article 6:181(1) DCC).

Equine law in the Netherlands is not a separate statute but general Dutch private law applied to horses. This page explains who is liable when a horse causes damage, how far a contract can shift that risk, and what Dutch insurance law expects from you as a policyholder. Our equine lawyers in the Netherlands review contracts and insurance policies and act when a claim follows.

Under Dutch law, liability in connection with a horse can arise on three grounds: a failure to perform a contract (Article 6:74 DCC), an unlawful act that can be attributed to the person concerned (Article 6:162 DCC), and the strict liability of the possessor of an animal (Article 6:179). The last ground matters most for horse owners, because it does not require fault. Insurance does not change who is liable, but it does determine whether the liable person can actually pay.

Insurance law has rules of its own that protect injured persons. For example, once the incident has been reported to a liability insurer, the injured person can require that the amount the insured can claim from the insurer for death or personal injury is paid directly to him (Article 7:954(1) DCC).

What is Dutch equine law?

Dutch law has no separate equine statute. Equine law is general private law applied to horses. Animals are not things, but the rules on things apply to them, subject to the limits set by law and unwritten law, public order and morality (Article 3:2a DCC). Equine law covers contracts (sale, livery, lease and instruction), liability for damage and ownership.

In practice, most disputes concern contracts between owners, riding schools, livery yards, trainers and buyers, and claims after an accident. Public-law rules, for example on animal welfare and transport, also apply to horses, but they are not covered on this page.

The rules on liability for horses differ from country to country. This page covers Dutch law. Whether Dutch law applies to a cross-border contract or to an accident abroad is a separate question of private international law. For disputes, see also litigation and arbitration on equine law in the Netherlands.

Insurance policies are contracts too. Their terms decide which incidents are covered, so read them alongside the liability rules below.

When are you liable in the Netherlands?

Liability means that one party must compensate the damage suffered by another. In equine matters it can follow from a failure to perform a contract (Article 6:74), from an unlawful act (Article 6:162), or from the special rules for possessors of animals (Article 6:179) and for businesses that use animals (Article 6:181).

The possessor of an animal is liable for the damage it causes, unless he would not have been liable under the rules on unlawful acts if he had had control over the behaviour of the animal that caused the damage (Article 6:179 DCC). The question is therefore not whether the possessor was careful, but whether he would have been liable if he had steered the horse’s behaviour himself. The Supreme Court explains this liability by the fact that the possessor keeps the animal for his own reasons, usually economic benefit or pleasure, and thereby creates a danger for others through the unpredictable energy of the animal as a living being (Supreme Court 29 January 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:162, para. 3.6.1). A kick, a bite, a horse breaking out onto the road or bolting with a rider can all fall under this rule.

If the injured person contributed to the damage, for example a rider who ignored instructions, the compensation is reduced in proportion to the extent to which the circumstances attributable to each party contributed to the damage. Fairness may require a different distribution, or that the obligation to compensate lapses entirely or remains in full, given the differing seriousness of the faults or other circumstances of the case (Article 6:101(1) DCC).

Which parties can be held liable?

Towards third parties, the law points to a specific person. In principle this is the possessor of the horse, who is not necessarily its owner (Article 6:179). If the horse is used in the course of a business, such as a riding school or livery yard, liability rests on the person running that business (Article 6:181(1)). If the horse is made available for use in someone else’s business, that other business is liable (Article 6:181(2)). Others, such as an instructor, a stable or a transporter, can additionally be liable for their own fault (Article 6:162) or under their contract (Article 6:74).

The wording of Article 6:179 does not limit the group of injured persons (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:162, para. 3.4.3), so a rider or groom who is not a possessor of the horse can in principle rely on it, subject to a reduction for his own fault (Article 6:101). Co-possessors are treated differently. The Supreme Court held that Article 6:179 does not create strict liability towards a person who is himself a co-possessor of the animal (para. 3.7), and that the same applies under Article 6:181 between persons who use the animal in a business they run together (para. 3.8). Such persons are expected to insure their own risk, for example with accident insurance (paras. 3.6.3-3.6.4).

If the horse itself is injured at a livery yard or during a lesson, the owner’s claim usually rests on the contract. The yard or instructor must compensate the damage caused by a failure to perform, unless that failure cannot be attributed to them (Article 6:74(1)). Without a contract, the general rules on unlawful acts apply (Article 6:162).

If two or more persons are liable for the same damage, they are jointly and severally liable: the injured person can claim the full amount from each of them, and they then share the burden among themselves (Article 6:102(1) DCC).

How do you manage equine liability risk?

Risk management starts before an incident. Record duties clearly in stabling, lease and instruction contracts, keep training and veterinary records, and check that the insurance matches the activity actually carried out.

Good risk management reduces the number of incidents, but it does not remove strict liability: under Article 6:179, a careful possessor can still be liable. Its value lies in fewer claims, better evidence and a better defence against claims based on fault.

If you employ staff, such as grooms or riding instructors, you must take the measures reasonably necessary to prevent them from suffering damage at work. You are liable for such damage unless you prove that you met those obligations or that the damage was to a significant extent the result of the employee’s intent or deliberate recklessness (Article 7:658(1)-(2) DCC). The same applies to people who work in your business without an employment contract (Article 7:658(4)). Training, protective equipment and safety instructions are therefore also a legal matter.

In addition, good record keeping should also form part of any successful risk management plan as it provides evidence of due diligence efforts undertaken by the client in relation to their operations. Records might include details about employee training sessions held, dates of vehicle maintenance checks carried out, or even photographs showing up-to-date repairs made at stables or arenas owned by the client. Such records help you defend claims based on fault and prove what happened, although they do not exclude the strict liability of Article 6:179.

Keep your measures and records up to date, and review your insurance whenever your activities change. For the legal side of running a stable or riding school, see our page on horse activity businesses.

Which equine insurance cover do you need?

Two types of cover should be distinguished. Liability insurance covers claims by others for damage your horse causes. Insurance of the horse itself, for example against death, theft or veterinary costs, covers your own loss. For each policy, check the exclusions, for example for competitions, transport abroad or pre-existing conditions.

It is essential for horse owners to understand the different types of insurance that are available for their equine investments. Liability and property damage protection should be considered crucial when it comes to protecting your horses, facilities, and income-producing activities from potential financial losses.

Private owners should check whether their private liability insurance covers damage caused by a horse, or whether separate horse liability insurance is needed. Businesses such as riding schools and livery yards can take out business liability insurance (aansprakelijkheidsverzekering voor bedrijven, AVB); the riding school in the 2016 Supreme Court case had such a policy (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:162, para. 3.1). Professional indemnity insurance covers mistakes in professional services, for example by a trainer or vet.

Property protection can come in several forms depending upon whether you own a facility and what type of operation you have. Fire policies are typically used to insure barns, equipment, tack rooms, hay storage areas, etc., while Commercial Vehicle Insurance protects trucks and trailers used in equine operations. In addition, there may be additional riders included on some policies such as theft coverage or loss due to death/disease of insured animals. With proper insurance coverage in place, horse owners can protect themselves from potentially catastrophic financial losses resulting from unexpected events involving their investment(s).

Reimbursement for veterinary and farrier expenses can help alleviate the burden caused by these costly yet necessary services required for horse care and management.

What does Dutch insurance law require from you as a policyholder?

Before the policy is concluded, you must tell the insurer all facts you know or ought to know and that, as you know or ought to understand, may influence its decision whether to insure you and on what terms (Article 7:928(1) DCC). If the insurer used a questionnaire, it cannot rely on facts it did not ask about, unless you intended to mislead it (Article 7:928(6)). If you breach this duty, the payout depends on what the insurer would have done had it known: full payment if the facts were irrelevant to the risk that materialised, a proportional reduction if it would have charged a higher premium or insured a lower amount, payment as if the other conditions had been agreed if it would have imposed other conditions, and no payment if it would not have insured you at all or if you intended to mislead it (Article 7:930 DCC).

After an incident, report it to the insurer as soon as reasonably possible and provide the information and documents it needs within a reasonable time (Article 7:941(1)-(2) DCC). If you do not, the insurer may reduce the payment by the damage it suffers as a result; it can only stipulate loss of cover if its reasonable interests have been harmed, and cover lapses if you intended to mislead it, unless the deception does not justify that (Article 7:941(3)-(5)). The insurer does not compensate damage that the insured caused intentionally or recklessly (Article 7:952 DCC).

A claim against the insurer for payment is time-barred three years after the start of the day following the day on which the person entitled became aware that the payment was due (Article 7:942(1) DCC). A written notice claiming payment interrupts the limitation period; for liability insurance, any negotiation between the insurer and the insured or the injured person also interrupts it (Article 7:942(2)-(3)).

Who pays veterinary and farrier costs?

Who bears veterinary and farrier costs depends on the arrangement. A lease or livery contract should state it explicitly, including who decides on treatment and up to what amount, so a large bill does not become a dispute.

The law has no specific rule on who pays vet and farrier bills; the contract decides. Points to cover:

1. Veterinary treatment: horse insurance can cover vet costs. If the horse is injured because a livery yard or another contracting party failed to perform the contract properly, that party must compensate the damage, including vet costs, unless the failure cannot be attributed to it (Article 6:74(1) DCC). No special clause is needed for that.
2. Farrier services: agree in advance who decides on and pays for routine trimming and shoeing, and for specialist work such as corrective shoeing on a vet’s advice.
3. Cost-sharing agreements: co-owners and lessees should agree how vet and farrier costs are shared. Writing is not a legal requirement for such an agreement, but it prevents disputes about what was agreed.

In the end, it pays to plan ahead when considering liability issues surrounding equine law in the Netherlands; having proper documentation in place before unforeseen events occur can save you time, money and stress down the road. With a solid foundation laid out regarding reimbursement protocols concerning vet and farrier services, we now turn our attention towards termination and cancellation provisions within equine contracts.

What should a termination clause say?

A termination clause should state the notice period, the grounds for immediate termination, what happens to the horse on termination, and how outstanding costs are settled. Silence on these points turns an exit into litigation.

How a stabling, lease or instruction agreement ends is determined by the contract and the Dutch Civil Code. If a party fails to perform, the other party may rescind (ontbinden) the contract in whole or in part, unless the failure, given its special nature or minor significance, does not justify rescission with its consequences (Article 6:265(1) DCC). Unless performance is permanently or temporarily impossible, the right to rescind only arises once the defaulting party is in default (Article 6:265(2)). Rescission is effected by a written declaration, or by the court at the request of the entitled party (Article 6:267 DCC).

A contract can allocate risks between the parties, for example who insures the horse and who bears the cost if a third party is injured. Towards the injured third party, however, the contract changes nothing: that person can still claim from the person liable by law, such as the possessor or the business operator (Articles 6:179 and 6:181). Check that each party’s insurance matches the risks it takes on under the contract, including for riding instruction and livery.

Finally, consider whether and to what extent a party may exclude or limit its liability. That is discussed below.

Can you exclude liability under Dutch law?

An exclusion or limitation of liability is in principle valid. A party cannot rely on it, however, insofar as that would be unacceptable by standards of reasonableness and fairness in the circumstances (Article 6:248(2) DCC). Courts generally consider this to be the case if the damage was caused intentionally or through deliberate recklessness. In general terms and conditions used towards a consumer, a clause that releases the user or a third party wholly or partly from a statutory obligation to pay damages is presumed to be unreasonably onerous (Article 6:237(f) DCC) and can then be annulled (Article 6:233(a)). Between businesses that are not both established in the Netherlands, these rules on general terms and conditions do not apply, whatever law governs the contract (Article 6:247(2)); if Dutch law applies, Article 6:248(2) remains available.

An exclusion clause only binds the parties to the contract. A visitor, passer-by or other third party who is injured by the horse is not bound by it and can still claim under Article 6:179 or 6:181.

Unlike some other legal systems, Dutch law does not grant horse owners, riding schools or horse professionals a special statutory immunity for the inherent risks of dealing with horses. Protection comes from the “unless” clause of Article 6:179, the reduction for the injured person’s own fault (Article 6:101), valid contract clauses within the limits described above, and insurance.

Because there is no such immunity, check what your insurance covers before a dispute arises, so you know where you stand if it ends in mediation or litigation in the Netherlands.

Mediation or litigation: which resolves your dispute?

Mediation keeps the dispute private, costs less and can preserve the relationship. Litigation delivers a judgment that binds and can be enforced. Weigh the value at stake, the urgency, and whether you need a public outcome.

Resolution of disputes in equine law in the Netherlands can be achieved through mediation or litigation in Holland. When considering which path to take, it’s important to weigh the pros and cons of each approach:

1. Mediation is typically a less costly option than engaging in lengthy court proceedings, and allows for more flexibility when determining who will pay costs associated with resolving the dispute.
2. Litigation often provides finality to a dispute because it involves an adjudication by a court; however, this process may also become expensive due to attorneys’ fees, expert witness testimonies, and other related expenses.
3. Engaging in mediation prior to initiating litigation may reduce legal costs in some cases and allow parties to reach agreements without involving courts.
4. Each side should seek advice from experienced counsel regarding the different approaches available so that they can make informed decisions about how best to resolve their issues.

For court proceedings, note the rules on representation. Before the subdistrict court (kantonrechter), which hears for example claims of up to €25,000 unless the legal basis exceeds that amount and is disputed (Article 93(a) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure), parties may litigate without a lawyer (Article 79(1) DCCP). In other cases a lawyer is required (Article 79(2)), although a defendant in summary proceedings may appear in person (Article 255(1) DCCP). Do not wait too long: a claim for damages is time-barred five years after the start of the day following the day on which the injured person became aware of both the damage and the liable person, and in any event twenty years after the event that caused the damage. For personal injury or death, the twenty-year limit does not apply, and a special rule protects minors (Article 3:310(1) and (5) DCC).

Where can you find the Dutch rules?

When it comes to any liability or insurance issues that may arise in connection with equine law, there are several legal resources available for those seeking guidance.

The Dutch rules are in the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), available in Dutch on wetten.overheid.nl; there is no official English translation. Published Dutch case law can be searched on rechtspraak.nl. An equine lawyer in the Netherlands can advise on how these rules apply to your situation.

Knowing the risks involved in dealing with horses is essential when managing through all aspects of equine law. With access to the right legal resources and knowledgeable advisors, anyone looking for assistance in this area can make informed decisions concerning liability and insurance considerations relating to horses.

Frequently asked questions about liability and insurance in equine law in the Netherlands

Are you liable when your horse causes damage in the Netherlands?

In principle, yes, if you are the possessor of the horse, even without fault. You are not liable only if you would not have been liable under the rules on unlawful acts had you controlled the horse’s behaviour yourself (Article 6:179 DCC). If the horse is used in a business, the business operator is liable instead (Article 6:181(1)). The injured person’s own fault can reduce the compensation (Article 6:101).

What does third-party liability mean in horse insurance?

It covers your liability towards others (“third parties”) for damage caused by your horse, such as injury to a passer-by or damage to a car. It does not cover damage to your own horse; that requires insurance of the horse itself. For death or personal injury, the injured person can require the liability insurer to pay him directly once the incident has been reported (Article 7:954(1) DCC).

Can a co-owner of a horse claim against the other co-owner?

Not on the basis of strict liability, if both are co-possessors of the horse. The Supreme Court held that Article 6:179 DCC does not create strict liability towards a co-possessor of the animal, and that Article 6:181 does not do so between persons who use the animal in a business they run together (Supreme Court 29 January 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:162, paras. 3.7-3.8). A co-owner is expected to insure his own risk, for example with accident insurance.

How do I deal with a horse injury claim under Dutch law?

Report the incident to your insurer as soon as reasonably possible and give it the information it needs (Article 7:941 DCC). Record what happened, who was involved and who possessed or used the horse. A damages claim is time-barred five years after the start of the day following the day on which the injured person became aware of both the damage and the liable person; for personal injury, the twenty-year long-stop does not apply (Article 3:310(1) and (5)). A claim for payment against your own insurer is time-barred three years after you became aware that the payment was due (Article 7:942(1)).

How much does equine insurance cost?

Dutch law does not set premiums; insurers set them themselves, for example depending on the cover chosen and the value and use of the horse. What the law does regulate is your duty of disclosure: if you fail to disclose relevant facts, the insurer may reduce or refuse payment, depending on what it would have done had it known (Articles 7:928 and 7:930 DCC).

Primary sources

• Dutch Civil Code, Book 3: Articles 3:2a and 3:310
• Dutch Civil Code, Book 6: Articles 6:74, 6:101, 6:102, 6:162, 6:179, 6:181, 6:233, 6:237, 6:247, 6:248, 6:265 and 6:267
• Dutch Civil Code, Book 7: Articles 7:658, 7:928, 7:930, 7:941, 7:942, 7:952 and 7:954
• Dutch Code of Civil Procedure: Articles 79, 93 and 255
• Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) 29 January 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:162 (co-possessors and joint business users of an animal)