Court Rules Zoo Not Liable for Petting Zoo Injury

A regional court in Stralsund has determined that a zoo in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is not responsible for covering medical expenses after a visitor sustained injuries in a petting zoo incident involving a goat. The legal dispute centered on whether the zoo could be held accountable for costs incurred by a health insurance provider after an accident that led to a visitor requiring knee surgery and an extended period away from work.

The case arose after a woman visiting the animal park with her family was knocked over by a goat inside the petting enclosure, resulting in significant injury. Her health insurance provider subsequently sought reimbursement from the zoo for over EUR31,000 in medical and related costs, arguing that the animal exhibited aggressive behavior and that the zoo had failed to ensure visitor safety.

The court found that the zoo had taken all necessary and reasonable steps to protect visitors within the petting zoo. Evidence presented showed that the goat involved was a common breed in such facilities and did not display unusual aggression or hunger. The zoo maintained that all animals had continuous access to food, and that the special pellet feed sold to visitors was particularly attractive to the goats due to its taste rather than any sign of underfeeding.

Testimonies during the proceedings did not conclusively establish whether the incident was the result of a targeted action by the goat or simply an accidental collision as a group of goats moved through the enclosure. Some witnesses described the animal as having intentionally struck the visitor, while others suggested the visitor was inadvertently in the path of a moving group of animals.

The court emphasized that entering a petting zoo involves a degree of inherent risk, as animal behavior can be spontaneous and unpredictable. Visitors, according to the ruling, should be aware that contact with animals may lead to unexpected situations. The court also noted that the health insurance provider's claim that the goat was a male and therefore more likely to be aggressive could not be substantiated, as both male and female members of the breed possess horns and no evidence supported the presence of aggressive males in the enclosure.

The judgment concluded that despite the unfortunate outcome, the zoo was not negligent and cannot be held liable for the incident. The court stated that even with the highest level of care, it is not possible to entirely eliminate the risk of such occurrences in petting zoos, and that visitors enter these areas at their own risk. The insurance provider retains the right to appeal the decision to a higher court.

This ruling is significant for similar cases regarding liability in public animal enclosures and clarifies the extent of responsibility animal parks hold for incidents involving visitor-animal interactions.