Hit a Camel or Stray Animal on a Kuwait Road: Who Pays, the Owner, the Government or the Insurer?

Anyone who drives Kuwait's desert highways and outer roads at night knows the moment: a camel, a flock of sheep or a stray animal steps out of the darkness with no warning at all. These roads run past spring camps, livestock pens (jawakhir) and farms, and many of them are unlit for long stretches. A collision with a camel is among the most dangerous crashes a car can have. The animal is heavy and tall, so the impact often lands on the windscreen and roof rather than the bumper, and the result can be a written-off car, serious injuries to the driver and passengers, or a death.

After the crash, the person who was hurt faces several connected questions. Is the camel's owner liable, and how do you find the owner if nobody comes forward? Does a government body responsible for the road or for livestock have any part to play? Will the insurer pay for the car repairs or the passengers' medical treatment? And what happens if someone says the driver was speeding, or should have expected animals on that road? No single rule answers all of this. The answers come from the rules on liability for animals in the Civil Code, the motor insurance rules, the law of evidence and the traffic and investigation procedures.

This article covers one specific situation: a car hitting an animal on the road. We have already explained the general rules on liability for things and animals in Liability for Things and Animals under Kuwaiti Law. Animal attacks on people are covered in Dog Bites and Pet Attacks in Kuwait, and damage caused by defects in the road itself is covered in Potholes and Roadworks Damage. Here we answer one question: if your car hits a camel or a stray animal, who bears the loss, who pays you, and how do you prove your claim step by step?

The Short Answer

The basic rule is that the person who has custody of the animal is liable for the harm the animal causes. That person is usually the owner, or whoever actually controls the animal. Liability applies even if the animal strayed, escaped its pen or wandered away from its herder. The custodian cannot avoid liability simply by saying he took care. As a rule, he must prove that the harm came from an outside cause he had nothing to do with, such as force majeure, the victim's own fault or a third party's fault.

In practice, the position looks like this:

• If the owner or custodian is known: the claim goes mainly against him. It covers damage to the car, injuries to the driver and passengers, and all other material and moral harm.
• If the driver was partly at fault: for example through excessive speed, inattention or ignoring warning signs, compensation may be reduced in proportion to the driver's share in causing the harm. The custodian may be released entirely if the driver's fault was the sole and overriding cause.
• If the owner is unknown: the case turns on evidence and investigation. A government body may be examined for liability if a specific failure on its part is proven. That liability is not automatic, and it does not arise merely because the crash happened on a public road.
• Insurance: the compulsory motor policy mainly covers liability for bodily injury to others, according to its terms. It does not normally pay to repair your own car. A comprehensive policy may cover your car's damage, depending on its wording, and the insurer then pursues the liable party.

Everything above depends on the first step: report the crash immediately, have a traffic report drawn up, and record the animal, any brand or mark on it and the scene before the animal is removed from the road.

The Legal Framework

Several Kuwaiti laws govern this type of accident, and they work together:

• The Civil Code, Law No. 67/1980: the main source on liability for harmful acts. It contains a specific rule on a custodian's liability for harm caused by an animal. It also covers liability for things that need special care, including vehicles; the victim's own fault and how liability is shared among several responsible parties; how compensation is assessed, including the diya (blood money) for bodily injury; and an employer's liability for the acts of its employees.
• The Traffic Law, Law No. 67/1976, and its executive regulations: set drivers' duties, including speed limits and driving to suit road and visibility conditions. The law also governs how accidents are handled and reports drawn up, and it makes motor insurance compulsory.
• The Insurance Regulation Law, Law No. 125/2019: regulates insurance companies and their supervision. This affects how claims and complaints against insurers are handled.
• The Penal Code, Law No. 16/1960, and the Criminal Procedure Law, Law No. 17/1960: where the crash causes death or injury, criminal liability for negligent homicide or negligent injury may be investigated. This can concern the driver or the person who failed to keep the animal under control, depending on what the investigation shows.
• The Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Law No. 38/1980: governs filing and running a civil claim, appointing court experts and protective measures.
• The Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters, Law No. 39/1980: governs who must prove what, and how: documents, witness testimony, presumptions and expert evidence. Evidence is the core of these cases.
• Law No. 20/1981 establishing the Administrative Circuit: becomes relevant if the claim is directed at a government body. Which court hears a compensation claim against the administration depends on the nature of the act complained of, in particular whether it is an administrative decision or a physical act.

Alongside these laws are regulations and decisions on keeping, grazing, housing and transporting livestock, issued by the authorities responsible for agriculture, livestock and municipal affairs. We do not cite their numbers here. We also do not name any single body as exclusively responsible, because the division of powers between authorities can change. Identifying the right body in each case requires checking the provisions in force at the time of the accident.

The Substantive Rules

1. Who is the liable "custodian" of the animal?

The law ties liability to custody, not to ownership as such. The custodian is the person who actually controls the animal, using, directing and supervising it on his own account. The starting point is that the owner is the custodian, because ownership is evidence of control. So the injured person usually only needs to prove that someone owns the camel for liability to point at that person. The owner can then try to prove that custody genuinely passed to someone else, for example by selling or renting out the animal, or by handing it to a person who used it on his own account.

A paid herder or a worker at the pen or farm is, as a rule, an employee working for the owner. Custody does not pass to him just because he looks after the herd. The owner remains custodian and is also liable as employer if the herder was negligent in his work. The herder may also be personally liable for proven fault of his own, so the injured person can sue both together.

If the animal has several owners, or belongs to a partnership or a company, the custodian is whoever actually controlled the animal at the time of the crash. Liability may be shared among them as the judge decides.

2. The nature of the custodian's liability

Under the ordinary rules of personal liability, the injured person has to prove the defendant's fault. The custodian's liability works differently: fault is presumed. The injured person only needs to prove two things: that the animal was in the defendant's custody, and that the animal actively caused the harm, for example by crossing the road into the car's path. The custodian is not released by saying he locked the pen properly or that the animal broke through the fence. An animal straying or escaping does not end custody. That is exactly the situation the rule was made for.

The custodian can avoid liability by proving an outside cause: force majeure that could not be foreseen or prevented, the victim's fault, or a third party's fault, provided that this cause is what actually produced the harm. Examples where this defence comes up: someone deliberately opened the pen and let the animals out; an exceptional storm brought down the fence; or the driver left the road and drove into the grazing area itself. Whether the defence gives full or partial release is for the trial court to decide.

3. The driver's contributory fault and its effect on compensation

In practice, most of these disputes are decided on this point. The custodian or the insurer will usually try to blame the driver. They may argue that the driver was over the speed limit, or did not slow down despite signs warning of crossing animals. They may say he was driving at night on an unlit desert road too fast to stop within the distance he could see, that he was using his phone, or that his headlights were not working.

The rule is that the victim's own fault does not cancel the right to compensation just because it exists. The judge looks at how much each party's fault contributed to the harm. If the animal appeared so suddenly that no careful driver could have avoided it, slight excess speed may not count as a cause of the crash at all. But suppose it is proven that the driver was going very fast, in complete darkness, on a road known for camel crossings, and could have stopped had he kept to a suitable speed. Then the loss may be split between him and the custodian, and his compensation reduced by his share of the fault. In extreme cases, such as a driver deliberately chasing a herd or driving into a grazing area off the road, the driver's fault may outweigh the custodian's entirely, and the claim may be dismissed.

Courts differ on one question: does a driver's prior knowledge that animals cross a road amount, in itself, to fault? One view says this knowledge places a higher duty of care on the driver, so failing to slow down is contributory fault. The other view says that animals on a public road are already a breach by the custodian, and that breach should not be turned into a burden on road users. The trial judge decides this on the facts of each crash: the type of road, the lighting, whether there were signs, the distance of visibility, and how the driver behaved before the impact.

4. An animal with no known owner

These crashes often happen at night in remote places. The camel is found dead or injured, and nobody comes forward to claim it because they fear liability. The owner's absence does not mean the right to compensation is lost, but the case now depends heavily on evidence and investigation. The animal may carry a brand, a mark, an ear tag or a microchip. There may be a pen, a farm or a camp known for keeping camels near the scene, and there may be witnesses among local residents or herders. All of this should go into the report, and the investigating authorities should be asked to follow it up.

In some cases the competent authorities deal with stray animals, as circumstances require: removing them from roads or impounding them. They may keep records of licensed livestock or pens in the area. We do not say that any particular body is solely responsible for identifying or seizing the animal, because that depends on the administrative arrangements in force. In practice, though, it helps if the injured person or his lawyer asks the investigating authority to contact the bodies responsible for agriculture, livestock and municipal affairs about the mark, or about who owns the nearest pen.

5. Is a government body liable?

Many people ask: if the road is public and animals cross it all the time, isn't the state responsible for not stopping them? The answer is that a government body is not automatically liable, and liability does not arise merely because the crash happened on a public road. It is examined under the general rules of liability. That means proving a specific fault by the body and a causal link between that fault and the harm. Situations where this may be argued include a protective fence along a highway left broken for a long time despite reports; repeated reports of stray animals at a particular spot that the body ignored; and no warning signs at a place shown to be a regular animal crossing.

Even where an administrative failure is proven, the body's liability does not cancel the animal custodian's liability if the custodian is known. Liability may be shared between them, and the injured person can claim against either, according to how the judge divides responsibility. This is a different issue from defects in the road surface, such as potholes and roadworks, which we covered separately: here the harm comes from the animal, not the road. If you were hit by a government vehicle rather than an animal, different rules apply; see Hit by a Government Vehicle in Kuwait.

6. The role of compulsory and comprehensive insurance

The main purpose of Kuwait's compulsory motor policy is to cover the civil liability of the vehicle's owner and driver for bodily injury and death caused to others through use of the vehicle. This is subject to the terms and exclusions of the approved standard policy. In an animal collision, that has three important consequences:

• Injured passengers: passengers may be able to claim against the compulsory insurer of the car they were in, to the extent the policy covers them. They can also claim against the animal's custodian if he is known. This depends on the policy wording and on whether the driver of their car is found liable, so the actual policy needs to be read.
• The driver's own injuries: as a rule, the compulsory policy does not cover the injuries of the insured or of the driver himself, because it is liability insurance toward others. An injured driver's main claim is therefore against the animal's custodian, or under any extra cover his policy includes, such as personal accident insurance.
• Damage to the car: compulsory insurance does not normally cover this. If you have a comprehensive policy, check its terms. Many comprehensive policies cover collision damage whatever the cause, subject to the excess and to exclusions such as driving without a licence or under the influence. Once the insurer pays, it steps into your shoes and recovers what it paid from the animal's custodian.

You may have no comprehensive policy, the insurer may refuse to pay, or it may not cover your whole loss. In each case you keep a direct claim against the animal's custodian for the loss that has not been paid. That includes the car's loss of market value after repair and the cost of a replacement car, under the principles we explained in Diminished Value and Replacement Car Costs.

7. What compensation covers

You can claim for any actual harm that results directly from the crash. The main items are:

• The cost of repairing the car, or its value if it is a total loss, less the salvage value where appropriate.
• Loss of the car's market value after repair, if proven.
• The cost of a replacement car, or loss of use, for a reasonable repair period.
• Medical treatment, medication, physiotherapy and prosthetic devices.
• Diya or arsh (compensation for bodily injury and death) under the Civil Code's provisions, together with any compensation the court may award for other heads of loss.
• Lost earnings, such as wages lost during incapacity.
• Moral harm, such as psychological suffering and disfigurement, as assessed by the court.

Camel owners sometimes ask whether they can claim the value of the dead camel from the driver. That depends on how the fault is shared. If the driver's fault is proven to have caused the crash, the owner may raise the claim as a counterclaim or in a separate case. The judge then decides whether the owner is entitled to anything, or whether his own fault in letting the animal roam was the overriding cause. This is a matter for the court's judgment and cannot be settled in advance.

Principles of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation has consistently applied a number of principles to accidents of this kind. In general terms:

• A custodian's liability for an animal rests on presumed fault in custody. Simply denying negligence does not rebut it. The custodian can escape liability only by proving an outside cause he had nothing to do with.
• The custody that creates liability is actual control over the thing or animal, using, directing and supervising it on the custodian's own account. The owner is presumed to be the custodian unless custody is proven to have passed to someone else.
• If the victim's own fault contributed to the harm, compensation is reduced in proportion to it. If the victim's fault outweighs the other party's entirely, the other party is not liable.
• Whether fault exists, each party's share in it, and whether there is a causal link are questions of fact for the trial court, provided its reasoning is sound and grounded in the case file.
• Traffic reports and technical expert reports are evidence for the trial court to weigh. It may accept or reject them, giving sound reasons.
• An employer is liable for an employee's harmful act committed while performing his work or because of it.

Methodological note: we have deliberately left out appeal numbers and judgment dates. Citing a judgment accurately requires going back to its full text and facts. These principles are given here in the general form settled in the law of tort. When drafting a statement of claim or written submissions, the lawyer goes back to the full text of the relevant judgments and cites them with their correct numbers.

Practical Steps and Documents

At the scene

1. Safety first: switch on your hazard lights, put out a warning triangle if you can, and get away from moving traffic. Animal collisions usually happen on dark roads, where a second crash is a real risk.
2. Ambulance and report: call emergency services for an ambulance if anyone is hurt, and report the crash so that traffic police attend and write a report. Do not settle with someone who says he owns the camel, and do not leave before the police arrive.
3. Photograph everything: photograph the animal from several angles. Take special care to capture any brand, mark, ear tag, collar, rope or halter. Also photograph where the animal lies relative to the road, where your car is, any skid marks, any fence and its condition, warning signs or the lack of them, and the lighting at the spot.
4. Record the location: save the exact GPS location on your phone, and note the road name, the direction of travel and the nearest landmark.
5. Look around: note any pens, farms or camps nearby, or another herd close by, and photograph them from a distance without entering private property.
6. Witnesses: take the names and numbers of anyone who stopped to help, and of anyone who saw the animal before the crash or knows who owns it.
7. Dashcam: if you have a front camera, save the footage at once before it is overwritten. It is the strongest evidence of your speed and of how far away the animal was when it appeared.

After the crash

1. Traffic report: get a copy of the accident report. Make sure it records the animal, its description, any mark, and any information about its owner.
2. Medical reports: keep every hospital report, treatment record and sick-leave certificate for each injured person. They are the basis of the claim for diya and compensation.
3. Notify your insurer: inform your insurer in writing as soon as possible, since many policies require prompt notice, and give it the report and photographs.
4. Assess the damage: get a repair estimate from an approved source. Do not start major repairs before the insurer has inspected the car or the damage has been fully documented.
5. Trace the owner: through the investigating authority or your lawyer, ask the relevant bodies to identify the animal's owner from its mark or from the nearest pen.
6. Watch the time limits: a compensation claim for a harmful act is subject to a short limitation period. It starts when the injured person learns of the harm and of the person responsible. There is also a longer outer limit after which the claim cannot be heard in any case. Do not delay, or you may lose your claim.

Key documents for the claim

• Civil ID, vehicle registration book and driving licence.
• The compulsory policy, the comprehensive policy if there is one, and correspondence with the insurer.
• The traffic report and any police or prosecution investigation record.
• Photographs, videos and dashcam footage.
• Repair estimates and actual invoices.
• Medical reports and treatment invoices.
• Proof of income, to support lost earnings.
• The rental contract or invoices for any replacement car.
• Any evidence of who owns or keeps the animal, such as official enquiry replies or witness statements.

The lawsuit

If no fair settlement is reached, the compensation claim is filed in the competent civil court against the animal's custodian. Depending on the claim, the insurer can be joined, and so can a government body if a failure on its part is proven. The court usually appoints an expert to assess the damage and sometimes to examine how the crash happened. If criminal proceedings begin because of a death or injury, it may be sensible to file a civil claim within the criminal case, or to wait for the criminal judgment and rely on its binding effect. Be careful about a hasty settlement without a police report; we explained the risks in Settling a Traffic Accident Without a Police Report.

Hypothetical Cases

Case one: a branded camel on a highway at night

Ahmad was driving at night on an outer road, within the speed limit, when a camel suddenly appeared from behind a bend and he hit it. Ahmad suffered fractures and his car was badly damaged. The traffic police photographed the camel, which had a brand on its neck, and a herder said it belonged to a nearby farm. The farm's owner is presumed to be the camel's custodian. He is liable for Ahmad's injuries and for the car damage unless he proves an outside cause. If Ahmad has a comprehensive policy, his insurer may pay for the repairs and then pursue the camel's owner. Ahmad claims compensation for his own injuries directly from the owner. Dashcam footage showing that he kept to the speed limit will be decisive if the owner argues that the driver was at fault.

Case two: speeding on a road known for camel crossings

Sara was driving far above the speed limit on an unlit desert road with signs on both sides warning of crossing animals, and she hit a flock of sheep. Skid marks and the expert report showed that she could have stopped had she kept to the limit. Here the judge is likely to split liability between her and the flock's owner and reduce her compensation by her share of the fault. The owner may in turn claim the value of the animals that died, and the judge will assess that in light of each side's share of the fault. This does not mean the owner escapes entirely: leaving a flock on a public road at night is a failure of custody in its own right.

Case three: an unidentified camel and a broken fence

Khaled hit a camel at night on a highway lined with a protective fence, and part of the fence turned out to have been broken for a long time. Nobody claimed the camel, and it bore no clear mark. Khaled's passenger was injured. The first step is to identify the owner through investigation and enquiries. If that fails, the liability of the body responsible for the road may be examined, if it can be shown that it was told about the damaged fence and took no action within a reasonable time. That is a fine question of proof, and it requires evidence of the earlier reports. The injured passenger may be able to claim against the compulsory insurer of Khaled's car, depending on the policy terms, alongside any other remedy the law provides. If the camel's owner is identified later, the short limitation period against him runs from when he became known, much as we explained in Uninsured Vehicles and Hit-and-Run Drivers.

Quick Comparison

• Known owner, careful driver: liability rests mainly on the animal's custodian, and the victim is compensated for the full loss. A comprehensive insurer, if there is one, pays and then recovers from the custodian.
• Known owner, driver partly at fault: liability is shared and compensation reduced by the driver's share. The owner may claim the animal's value on the same basis.
• Driver's fault is the sole overriding cause: the claim against the custodian may be dismissed and the driver bears his own loss. Passengers can still claim under the compulsory policy terms.
• Unknown owner, no proven administrative failure: the hardest position. Compensation in practice depends on the car's comprehensive policy and on whether investigation identifies the owner.
• Unknown owner, proven administrative failure: the government body's liability may be examined under the general rules. A specific fault and a causal link must be proven.
• Injured passengers in every scenario: they can claim against the car's compulsory insurer according to the policy, and against the animal's custodian if known.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the camel's owner liable even if it escaped its pen without his knowledge?

As a rule, yes. A custodian is liable for harm his animal causes even if it strayed or escaped. Saying he was not careless, or did not know, is not enough. He is released only by proving an outside cause, such as someone else letting the animal out, or force majeure.

Who pays for my car repairs if I have no comprehensive insurance?

The liable custodian of the animal pays. You claim from him by agreement or through the courts. Your own compulsory policy does not normally cover repairs to your car, because it is liability insurance for bodily injury to others.

Does comprehensive insurance cover hitting an animal?

That depends on your policy wording. Many comprehensive policies cover collision damage whatever the cause, subject to an excess and specific exclusions. Read the policy and notify the insurer in writing promptly. Once it pays, the insurer takes over your right to claim against the animal's owner.

My passengers were injured. Who do they claim against?

Injured passengers can claim against the animal's custodian if he is known. They may also be able to claim against the compulsory insurer of the car they were in, depending on the policy terms and scope of cover. It is best for each passenger to submit a separate claim with his own medical reports.

Nobody knows who owns the camel. Have I lost my claim?

Not necessarily. Start by recording the animal's mark, the location and any nearby pens, and ask the investigating authority to make enquiries with the relevant bodies. The owner may come to light later. If not, you can still rely on any comprehensive cover, and a government body's liability may be examined if a specific failure on its part is proven.

Is the state liable because the crash happened on a public road?

No, not automatically. You must prove a specific fault by the body concerned, such as leaving a protective fence broken despite reports, or ignoring repeated reports of stray animals at the same spot. You must also prove that this failure caused the crash.

The insurer says I was speeding. Have I lost my right to compensation?

Not just because they say so. If your fault is proven, it normally reduces compensation in proportion to its contribution. It defeats the claim entirely only if it was the overriding cause of the crash. Whoever alleges your fault must prove it, and the judge weighs it against the report, the expert evidence and the other proof.

Can the camel's owner claim the value of the dead camel from me?

He may try, if he says you caused the crash through your own fault. The judge will look at how the fault is shared. If leaving the animal loose on a public road was the main cause, the owner may get nothing or only part of the value. Do not sign any admission or promise to pay at the scene.

Can I settle privately with the camel's owner without a traffic report?

This is not advisable, especially where there are injuries or serious damage. Without a report, it is harder to prove the crash, its location and its cause to the insurer or the court, and the other side may back out of the deal. It is safer to get the report first and negotiate on that basis.

What if I swerved to avoid the camel and hit a barrier without touching it?

The law does not require physical contact between the animal and the car for liability to arise. It is enough that the animal actively caused the crash. Proof is harder, though, so witnesses, dashcam footage and traces of the animal at the scene become very important.

Is the herder employed by the owner personally liable?

The herder may be liable for his own proven fault. As a rule, though, the owner remains the animal's custodian and is also liable for his employee's acts. It is usually best to claim mainly against the owner and join the herder where appropriate.

Can the animal's owner face criminal charges?

If the crash caused a death or injury, the investigating authorities may examine whether he is responsible for negligent homicide or negligent injury under the Penal Code, Law No. 16/1960, if his failure to keep the animal under control is proven. The outcome depends on the investigation and on the prosecution's and court's assessment.

Does the time for filing a claim matter in these cases?

Yes. A compensation claim for a harmful act is subject to a short limitation period that starts when the victim learns of the harm and of who is responsible. If the owner was unknown and is identified later, the period may run from that point. Do not delay; see a lawyer promptly so the period can be worked out on your facts.

Conclusion

If you hit a camel or a stray animal, you are not left to carry the loss alone. Kuwait's Civil Code places a presumed liability on the animal's custodian for harm the animal causes, and only an outside cause releases him. But turning that rule into real compensation depends on two things: identifying the custodian, and answering any claim that the driver was at fault.

That is why the first minutes after the crash can decide the whole claim. Get the report drawn up, photograph the animal and its mark, save the dashcam footage, take witness details and note any nearby pens. After that, the claim depends on dealing correctly with the insurer, tracing the owner and filing suit on time against the right parties.

Where the animal's owner is unknown or a government body's liability is alleged, the case needs careful evidence, because that liability is never presumed. For the wider picture of civil claims, see Compensation and Civil Claims in Kuwait. Sudden mechanical failures sometimes overlap with animal collisions; for those, see Accidents Caused by Sudden Brake, Tyre or Steering Failure.

Legal Notice

This article provides general legal information about Kuwaiti law. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with the firm. The rules described may be changed by legislation, and courts apply them to the facts of each case. Insurance policy terms vary from one insurer to another.

If your car has hit a camel or a stray animal, the team at Yumnaak Law Firm can review the report and evidence, trace the animal's custodian, deal with your insurer, and file and pursue your compensation claim through to enforcement. Contact us through our contact page or book an appointment to have your case reviewed.