Under Swiss law, the liability of an animal keeper is governed by art. 56 of the Code of Obligations (CO). This provision establishes a presumption of fault against the keeper when an animal causes damage to a third party. This regime of attenuated strict liability provides enhanced protection for victims, while leaving the keeper the possibility of exoneration by providing exculpatory proof. PBM Avocats advises you on your rights and obligations regarding civil liability related to animals.
The regime of art. 56 CO — presumption of fault
Art. 56 para. 1 CO provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for damage caused by it, unless the keeper proves that all precautions required by the circumstances were taken to prevent the animal from causing such damage, or that such precautions would not have prevented the damage from occurring.
This regime differs from ordinary fault-based liability under art. 41 CO on one fundamental point: the keeper's fault is presumed. The victim does not have to show that the keeper was negligent; the victim need only establish:
- The existence of damage
- The animal's behaviour as the cause of the damage
- The natural and adequate causal link between the animal's behaviour and the damage
It then falls to the keeper to rebut this presumption by providing exculpatory proof.
The concept of keeper
The status of keeper within the meaning of art. 56 CO does not necessarily coincide with that of owner. The keeper is the person who has effective custody of the animal at the time the damage is caused, i.e. the person who exercises factual control over the animal.
The following may be qualified as keepers:
- The owner of the animal, when in custody of it
- The temporary caretaker (neighbour, friend, family member to whom the animal was entrusted for the duration of a trip)
- The professional trainer training the animal
- The veterinarian during treatment, a consultation or hospitalisation
- The boarding facility housing the animal during the owner's absence
When several persons simultaneously have custody of an animal, their liability may be joint and several. The question of who was effectively the keeper at the time of the damage is a question of fact determined by the court based on the specific circumstances.
Conditions of liability
For the keeper's liability to be engaged under art. 56 CO, several cumulative conditions must be met.
The existence of an animal
Art. 56 CO applies to any animal, whether domestic or non-domestic. The provision covers common pets (dogs, cats) as well as livestock (cattle, horses, pigs), legally kept exotic animals (reptiles, rare birds) or any other animal under a keeper's custody. The wild or domestic nature of the animal influences the assessment of required precautions, but does not alter the principle of the presumption of fault.
Damage caused by the animal's behaviour
The damage must result from the animal's own behaviour, i.e. a manifestation of its animal nature. This may include a bite, a blow, a kick, a sudden flight or any other instinctive behaviour. The damage may be physical (injuries, harm to health), material (destruction of an object) or immaterial.
The causal link
A natural and adequate causal link must exist between the animal's behaviour and the damage suffered. Natural causation requires that, without the animal's behaviour, the damage would not have occurred. Adequate causation requires that the animal's behaviour is apt, according to the ordinary course of events and general life experience, to bring about damage of this kind.
Absence of exculpatory proof
In the absence of exculpatory proof provided by the keeper, liability is engaged. If the keeper proves that all necessary precautions were taken, or that these precautions would not have prevented the damage in any event, liability is excluded. Contributory fault of the victim may reduce or eliminate the right to compensation (art. 44 CO).
Exculpatory proof
Exculpatory proof is the central mechanism by which the keeper can be released from liability. The keeper must demonstrate that all precautions required by the circumstances were taken to prevent the damage, or that those precautions would not have been sufficient in any event.
Relevant precautions vary according to the nature of the animal and the circumstances:
- Adequate supervision of the animal in public or private places
- Appropriate restraint measures (lead, muzzle, secure enclosure, fence)
- Training and socialisation of the animal, particularly for dogs
- Signage warning of the presence of a potentially dangerous animal
- Confinement measures adapted to the nature and instincts of the animal
In practice, exculpatory proof rarely succeeds when the animal has caused significant bodily harm. Swiss courts assess precautions taken strictly, taking into account the foreseeability of the animal's behaviour and the inherent risk of keeping it.
Right of recourse against a third party (art. 56 para. 2 CO)
Art. 56 para. 2 CO provides that the keeper who has compensated the damage has a right of recourse against the person who, through their fault, provoked the animal's harmful behaviour. This recourse is directed notably against:
- The person who incited the animal (by hitting, provoking or irritating it)
- The person who frightened it (sudden noise, abrupt gesture that triggered a panic reaction)
- Any third party whose faulty behaviour causally contributed to triggering the animal's harmful behaviour
This recourse requires that the person targeted committed a fault within the meaning of art. 41 CO. It is particularly relevant when the keeper was compelled to compensate the victim even though the animal's behaviour was provoked by a third party.
Typical situations and liability
| Situation | Applicable regime | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Dog bite on a public road | Art. 56 CO — presumption of fault of the keeper | Lead and muzzle reduce the risk but do not always suffice for exoneration |
| Kick from a horse | Art. 56 CO — liability of the keeper (owner or rider) | A warning sign is a precautionary element but insufficient on its own |
| Fall caused by a cat in a stairwell | Art. 56 CO — liability of the cat's keeper | The causal link must be established; contributory fault of the victim may reduce compensation |
| Domesticated wild animal (e.g. exotic reptile) | Art. 56 CO — enhanced precaution requirements | The inherent dangerousness of the animal makes exculpatory proof even more difficult to establish |
| Road accident caused by livestock at large | Art. 56 CO — liability of the breeder or herd keeper | Quality of fencing and herd supervision are central elements of exculpatory proof |
Relationship with the Federal Act on Animal Protection (LPA)
The Federal Act on Animal Protection (LPA) and its implementing ordinance (OPAn) impose on animal keepers legal obligations regarding care and keeping conditions. These obligations have a direct bearing on the assessment of the diligence expected under civil liability law.
The keeper is in particular required to:
- Ensure that the animal receives care corresponding to its behavioural and physiological needs
- Provide appropriate housing, feeding and veterinary care
- Avoid any mistreatment or neglect likely to engender aggressive behaviour
- For dogs: to follow specific training in certain cantons and to allow the animal adequate socialisation
Non-compliance with LPA requirements may constitute serious evidence of a failure to meet the diligence required under art. 56 CO, making exculpatory proof even harder to establish.
Cantonal regulations on dangerous dogs
Several Swiss cantons have adopted specific legislation on dangerous dogs that supplements the federal framework. These cantonal regulations may impose additional requirements on keepers of certain breeds or dogs that have demonstrated aggressive behaviour.
Generally speaking, these cantonal laws frequently provide for:
- A prior authorisation to keep certain breeds considered potentially dangerous
- The obligation to keep the dog on a lead and with a muzzle in public places
- Training requirements imposed on the keeper (dog behaviour courses, aptitude tests)
- Reinforced keeping conditions (secure enclosure, signage)
- The possibility of confiscation of the animal in the event of serious breach of the keeper's obligations
Compliance with these cantonal requirements constitutes a relevant — but not in itself decisive — element for the assessment of exculpatory proof in the event of damage. The legislation applicable in the keeper's canton of residence must be verified. For questions related to keeping animals in rental accommodation, specific rules also apply.
Animal liability insurance
There is no federal obligation to take out animal liability insurance. However, several cantons have introduced compulsory third-party liability insurance for dogs.
For example:
- The canton of Geneva requires dog keepers to take out liability insurance covering damage caused by their animal
- The canton of Vaud also provides for a compulsory liability insurance obligation for dogs
- Other cantons may impose similar requirements, particularly for dogs classified in a risk category
Regardless of any legal obligation, taking out animal liability insurance is strongly recommended for all animal keepers, including in cantons where it is not compulsory. Bodily injuries caused by an animal can reach considerable amounts (medical expenses, loss of earnings, moral damages), which the keeper will have to bear personally in the absence of insurance cover.
Limitation period for liability claims
Claims based on art. 56 CO are subject to the limitation periods of art. 60 CO:
- 3 years from the day the victim became aware of the damage and the person who caused it (relative limitation)
- 10 years from the day on which the damaging behaviour occurred, regardless of the victim's knowledge (ordinary absolute limitation)
- 20 years from the damaging act when it resulted in bodily injury or the death of the victim (absolute limitation for bodily injuries, introduced by the 2020 reform)
These periods may be interrupted by various steps (acknowledgement of debt, judicial act). It is essential to act promptly after the occurrence of damage to preserve one's rights and gather the necessary evidence (medical findings, witness statements, police report where applicable).
Frequently asked questions on animal keeper liability
Who is considered an animal keeper under art. 56 CO?
The keeper under art. 56 CO is the person who has effective custody of the animal at the time the damage occurs. It is not necessary to be the owner. The following are considered keepers: the owner of the animal, a temporary caretaker (neighbour, friend to whom the animal was entrusted), a professional trainer, a veterinarian during treatment or hospitalisation, and a boarding facility. The concept rests on factual control over the animal, not on a legal title.
Can a dog owner be released from liability?
Yes, but the law requires the keeper to rebut a presumption of fault, which is difficult in practice. Art. 56 para. 1 CO allows the keeper to be exonerated by proving that all precautions required by the circumstances were taken to prevent the damage (adequate supervision, training, appropriate restraint measures), or that those precautions would not have prevented the damage in any event. Contributory fault of the victim or force majeure may also reduce or eliminate liability. In practice, the exculpatory proof rarely succeeds when the animal has caused bodily injury.
Is third-party liability insurance for dogs mandatory in Switzerland?
There is no federal obligation to take out dog liability insurance. However, several cantons have made such insurance compulsory for dog keepers. This is notably the case in the cantons of Geneva and Vaud, which require the taking out of liability insurance covering damage caused by dogs. Other cantons may impose similar requirements, particularly for certain breeds considered dangerous. It is therefore essential to check the cantonal legislation applicable at the keeper's place of residence.
Who is liable if the neighbour's dog injures my child?
Liability rests in principle with the keeper of the dog, i.e. the person who had effective custody at the time of the incident. If the dog belongs to the neighbour and was in his or her custody, that person is presumed at fault under art. 56 CO. It is for the keeper to prove that all necessary precautions were taken. The victim (or legal representatives if the victim is a minor) may therefore bring a claim directly against the keeper to obtain compensation for bodily injury, moral damages and medical expenses. Filing a claim with the keeper's liability insurer is the first step to take.
What is the difference between art. 41 and art. 56 CO?
Art. 41 CO establishes ordinary fault-based liability (subjective liability): the victim must prove the tortfeasor's fault, the damage and the causal link. Art. 56 CO, by contrast, establishes attenuated strict liability: the keeper's fault is presumed, and it is for the keeper to prove that the necessary precautions were taken (reversal of the burden of proof). Art. 56 CO is therefore more protective for the victim, who does not have to demonstrate a specific fault on the part of the keeper — it is sufficient to prove the existence of the damage, the animal's behaviour and the causal link.