A glance at the German Civil Code (Section 90a BGB) reveals a legal paradox: „Animals are not objects.“ Yet, in the very same breath, the law qualifies this by stating that the provisions applicable to objects are to be applied to them mutatis mutandis.
In the past, this legal context has sometimes led to a fatal oversimplification: If, in a claim for damages – such as in the case of a post-operative infection – an animal is often still treated as if it were a damaged piece of property, why should one go to the same extreme lengths with practice hygiene as in a human surgical theatre? In the case of an „object“, isn’t it sufficient simply to brush the surgical instruments thoroughly under the tap after use?
This misconception regarding „the matter“ now poses a massive liability and reputational risk. Anyone who cuts corners on instrument reprocessing is failing to recognise the modern reality. Firstly, case law has long since changed: courts now award pet owners compensation for medical malpractice (e.g. for expensive follow-up treatment for sepsis) that far exceeds the animal’s mere „purchase price“. To its owner, an animal is a member of the family, not a replaceable commodity.




