Civil Law and UAE: Non-Fault Liability Rules

1. Introduction

Non-fault liability means that a person may have to compensate for damage even though the claimant does not have to prove the defendant's ordinary negligence, intention, or personal fault.

In ordinary tort liability, the claimant generally has to establish:

Wrongful conduct/fault + Damage + Causation → Liability

In a non-fault or strict-liability situation, the statutory rule may instead operate as:

Specified risk/event + Damage + Causal connection → Liability

The UAE does not have one universal rule making every harmful activity subject to strict liability. Rather, the Civil Transactions Law creates particular situations where liability is imposed or presumed without the ordinary requirement of proving fault.

This is especially important for:

• dangerous things and machinery;
• animals;
• buildings;
• construction defects;
• decennial liability;
• certain transportation activities;
• liability for acts of others;
• technologically dangerous systems.

The current statutory framework is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, which entered into force on 1 June 2026 and repealed Federal Law No. 5 of 1985.

2. Meaning of Non-Fault Liability

Non-fault liability is liability based primarily on the risk or legally specified relationship, rather than proof of the defendant's subjective fault.

Example

Suppose a person controls a dangerous machine and the machine causes damage.

The victim may not have to prove:

"The owner was careless."

Instead, the claimant may need to establish:

1. the defendant had control of the relevant thing/machine;
2. the thing fell within the statutory category;
3. it caused the damage;
4. the damage was legally attributable to it.

This reflects the idea that a person who controls or benefits from a dangerous activity may bear the associated legal risk.

3. Non-Fault Liability Is Not Absolute Liability

This distinction is extremely important.

Non-fault liability does not necessarily mean liability in every circumstance.

A statutory regime may still allow defences such as:

• force majeure;
• unavoidable external cause;
• third-party conduct;
• victim's own conduct;
• absence of causal connection;
• statutory exceptions.

For example, the traditional UAE rule concerning things requiring special care allowed the custodian to avoid liability in circumstances where the damage could not have been prevented.

Therefore:

No requirement to prove ordinary fault ≠ no requirement to prove causation.

4. Main Categories of Non-Fault Liability in UAE Law

The precise statutory article numbers should always be checked against the 2025 Civil Transactions Law, because many provisions were renumbered when the new law replaced the 1985 Code.

5. Dangerous Things and Machinery

Under the former Civil Transactions Law, Article 316 imposed liability on a person controlling a thing requiring special care to prevent its danger, or a mechanical device, for damage caused by the thing or machine, subject to the statutory qualification concerning damage that could not have been prevented.

This is one of the clearest UAE examples of liability approaching strict/no-fault liability.

Example

A company operates a large industrial machine.

The machine unexpectedly malfunctions and injures a visitor.

The visitor may not necessarily have to prove:

"The company failed to maintain the machine."

The statutory dangerous-thing regime may shift the focus toward:

• control of the machine;
• dangerous character;
• causal connection;
• damage;
• availability of a statutory defence.

6. Case Law 1 — Dubai Court of Cassation Judgment No. 402/2020

This is an important authority concerning Article 316.

An insurer claimed substantial compensation after a fire involving a yacht and sought to hold the yacht builder responsible, relying in part on Article 316.

The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected liability because the evidence did not establish that the defendant's equipment was the cause of the fire. The case illustrates that even under the special dangerous-things regime, the claimant must establish the necessary causal connection; liability cannot rest merely on conjecture.

Principle

Non-fault liability does not eliminate the requirement of causation.

Importance

This is particularly important for modern technology disputes.

For example:

AI system + accident

does not automatically mean:

AI operator = liable.

The claimant must still establish that the relevant system caused the legally recognized damage.

7. Case Law 2 — Sharjah Roads and Transport Authority v Al-Futtaim Motors and Machinery (2019)

This case is frequently discussed in relation to the UAE's custodian liability for dangerous things.

The legal theory associated with the case treats liability concerning a thing requiring special care as a form of objective/no-fault responsibility, focusing on the relationship between the custodian, the dangerous thing and the resulting harm.

Significance

The case is particularly useful for understanding the UAE approach:

The burden associated with a dangerous thing may rest upon its custodian even without traditional proof of negligence.

It is therefore relevant to:

• machinery;
• vehicles;
• industrial equipment;
• autonomous systems;
• robotics.

8. Case Law 3 — Federal Supreme Court Appeal No. 99, Judicial Year 16

This is a particularly valuable historical UAE authority because the Federal Supreme Court discussed the distinction between:

• direct causation (mubashara); and
• causation through another act (tasabbub).

The Court explained that under the former Article 282/283 framework, direct harmful conduct could attract compensation without the same requirement of proving fault that applied to causation by indirect means.

The case also concerned maritime towing and the statutory liability of towing vessels.

Principle

The legal treatment of causation can differ depending upon whether the defendant directly caused the damage or caused it through another mechanism.

Relevance to non-fault liability

It demonstrates that UAE civil liability has historically contained forms of responsibility that do not correspond exactly to the conventional negligence model.

Current-law qualification

This decision was issued under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law and should therefore be used as historical jurisprudence rather than as a direct interpretation of the 2025 Law.

9. Decennial Liability — The Most Important Construction Example

One of the strongest examples of non-fault liability in UAE civil law is decennial liability.

Under the new Civil Transactions Law, the corresponding provisions are Articles 821–824.

Article 821 preserves the basic rule that the contractor and supervising engineer are jointly responsible for:

• total collapse;
• partial collapse;
• defects threatening the stability or safety of the building or fixed installation.

The liability operates for ten years from delivery of the works.

The regime is commonly described as a strict/no-fault statutory liability.

10. Why Decennial Liability Is Non-Fault Liability

Ordinarily, an employer might have to prove:

contractor's negligence → structural defect.

Under the decennial regime, the existence of the specified structural problem itself activates the statutory regime, without the employer having to establish ordinary negligence in the traditional way.

Thus:

Serious structural defect/collapse + statutory conditions → decennial liability

rather than:

Negligence + defect + damage → liability

This is why decennial liability is one of the clearest examples of non-fault liability in UAE civil law.

11. Case Law 4 — Dubai Court of Cassation No. 150/2007

This is a leading authority concerning decennial liability.

The Court confirmed that the contractor/engineer liability could remain even where the defect or collapse arose from a defect in the land or despite the employer's consent to the construction.

The Court also emphasized the contractual character of the decennial obligation and its statutory limitations.

Importantly, the Court held that a third party without the required contractual relationship could not simply rely on the decennial liability regime.

Principle

Decennial liability is a special statutory regime, not a general tort remedy available to everyone affected by a building defect.

Importance

It demonstrates both the strength and limits of non-fault liability.

12. Case Law 5 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation No. 293, Judicial Year 3

This decision concerned the operation of the decennial liability provisions.

The Court emphasized that the special liability becomes relevant after delivery and that not every defect is sufficient.

The defect must fall within the statutory category concerning the soundness, stability or safety of the building.

Principle

Non-fault liability is still controlled by the statutory conditions defining the risk.

Thus, a minor finishing defect is not automatically equivalent to a structural defect triggering decennial liability.

13. Case Law 6 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation No. 721, Judicial Year 3

This case addressed the scope of compensation and the statutory limits of decennial liability.

The Court treated the liability of the contractor and supervising engineer as confined to the legally specified structural consequences rather than every possible defect in a building.

Importance

The case establishes an important examination point:

Strict liability must be interpreted according to the statutory risk that the legislature intended to cover.

A defendant cannot necessarily be held responsible for every economic or aesthetic problem merely because the defendant participated in constructing the building.

14. Case Law 7 — Dubai Court of Cassation Judgment on Decennial Liability, 2023/2024

A more recent Dubai Court of Cassation decision concerned alleged defects in the design and supervision of a large development, including fire and irrigation systems.

The expert evidence did not establish the required structural defects or failures. The Court therefore upheld dismissal of the decennial-liability claim.

Principle

Even though decennial liability is a no-fault regime:

the claimant must still establish that the statutory conditions actually exist.

This is an important safeguard against treating non-fault liability as automatic liability.

15. Building Collapse Liability

Another traditional category concerns harm caused by the collapse of a building.

Under the former Article 315 framework, injury caused by total or partial collapse could give rise to responsibility of the owner/person in charge unless the statutory defence was established.

The basic policy is straightforward:

The person responsible for maintaining a potentially dangerous structure should bear the legal risk of structural failure in the circumstances specified by law.

This principle is particularly relevant to:

• residential buildings;
• commercial buildings;
• industrial structures;
• walls;
• fixed installations.

16. Animal Liability

UAE civil law has also traditionally imposed special responsibility upon the person responsible for an animal.

This is another example where the claimant's case is not necessarily based upon proving ordinary negligence in handling the animal.

The central questions become:

1. Who had custody/control?
2. Did the animal cause the damage?
3. Does the statutory exception apply?
4. Was there an intervening external cause?

This demonstrates the broader UAE principle that control of a potentially dangerous source can justify special civil responsibility.

17. Liability for Acts of Others

Non-fault liability should also be distinguished from vicarious liability.

Under the former Article 313, the law permitted liability to be imposed on persons having legal supervisory responsibility or actual authority and control over a tortfeasor in defined circumstances.

For example:

Employee causes damage in the course of employment → employer may bear statutory responsibility.

This does not mean that every employer is automatically liable for every employee action.

The statutory requirements must be satisfied.

18. Case Law 8 — Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2022] EWHC 529 (Comm)

This was an English High Court case applying UAE law, rather than a UAE court judgment.

The court considered the question whether UAE law could impose responsibility for another person's conduct outside the ordinary vicarious-liability framework, including arguments based on Article 313 and the former Article 291.

Importance

It illustrates an important principle:

Liability for another person's conduct must have a recognized legal foundation.

Simply alleging that one person was connected with another person's wrongdoing is insufficient.

Jurisdictional qualification

Because this was an English court applying UAE law, it is persuasive comparative authority, not a UAE Court of Cassation precedent.

19. Non-Fault Liability and Causation

A major misconception is:

"If liability is strict, causation does not matter."

That is incorrect.

Even where fault is unnecessary:

Causation remains essential.

For example:

Situation A

Machine causes injury.

Machine → Injury

Potential liability.

Situation B

Machine exists but injury results from an unrelated lightning strike.

Machine ≠ legally relevant cause

Liability may fail.

The distinction was particularly clear in Dubai Cassation Judgment 402/2020, where the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the defendant's equipment caused the fire.

20. Non-Fault Liability and Force Majeure

A statutory non-fault regime may still recognize an external cause.

Possible external causes include:

• natural disaster;
• unforeseeable event;
• force majeure;
• third-party conduct;
• claimant's conduct.

The precise defence depends on the applicable statutory provision.

Therefore:

Strict liability is stronger than negligence liability, but it is not necessarily unlimited liability.

21. Non-Fault Liability and Contributory Conduct

Suppose:

A dangerous machine causes an accident,

but the claimant deliberately ignored clearly communicated safety instructions.

The court may have to consider the claimant's contribution to the damage.

This is especially relevant under the modern Civil Transactions Law's rules concerning multiple responsibility and the injured person's contribution to harm.

Thus:

Defendant's non-fault responsibility + claimant's contribution

may result in an adjustment of compensation rather than automatic full recovery.

22. Non-Fault Liability and AI

The doctrine is increasingly relevant to autonomous systems.

Imagine:

Autonomous vehicle → unexpected movement → pedestrian injury.

Traditional negligence analysis might ask:

• Was the programmer negligent?
• Was the operator negligent?
• Was the manufacturer negligent?
• Was the training data defective?

A non-fault approach asks a different question:

Who legally controls the dangerous system, and does the statutory dangerous-thing regime apply?

Academic analysis of UAE law has specifically proposed Article 316-style custodian liability as a possible framework for autonomous AI systems, while recognizing that this is an application by analogy, not an established UAE appellate rule that AI is automatically a dangerous thing.

Therefore, one should not currently state that UAE law has already enacted a dedicated strict-liability regime for AI.

23. Non-Fault Liability and Autonomous Vehicles

A possible analytical model is:

Vehicle owner/operator

• autonomous driving system
• physical machine
• damage
  → statutory dangerous-thing analysis.

The court would still have to determine:

• who had custody;
• whether the vehicle qualifies under the relevant statutory category;
• whether it caused the harm;
• whether a third party intervened;
• whether the victim contributed;
• whether a special transportation statute applies.

24. Non-Fault Liability vs Negligence Liability

25. Non-Fault Liability vs Vicarious Liability

These are also different.

Non-fault liability

Dangerous thing causes damage → custodian may be liable.

Vicarious liability

Employee causes damage → employer may be liable under statutory conditions.

Decennial liability

Serious structural defect/collapse → contractor and engineer bear statutory responsibility.

Therefore, all three may operate without conventional proof of personal negligence, but their legal foundations are different.

26. Importance of Insurance

Non-fault liability is particularly important from an insurance perspective.

Businesses operating:

• heavy machinery;
• construction projects;
• industrial plants;
• vehicles;
• autonomous systems;
• hazardous equipment

may face liability even where establishing individual negligence is difficult.

Insurance therefore becomes an important risk-management mechanism.

In construction, for example, the decennial-liability regime creates long-term exposure for contractors and engineers.

27. Important Features of UAE Non-Fault Liability

1. It is exceptional

Ordinary civil liability does not automatically become strict liability.

2. It is generally statutory

The special category must have a legal foundation.

3. Fault may not need to be proved

This is its principal feature.

4. Causation remains necessary

The thing/activity must be legally connected with the damage.

5. Damage remains necessary

There must be legally compensable harm.

6. Defences may exist

External causes and statutory exceptions can remain relevant.

7. The statutory scope matters

A minor defect cannot automatically be converted into a decennial-liability claim.

8. Contract cannot always exclude statutory liability

The decennial regime is a major example of mandatory protection. The new law preserves the mandatory character of this liability.

28. Case-Law Revision Table

The first seven are UAE authorities; ADCB v Shetty is an English decision applying UAE law and should be treated accordingly.

29. Short Practical Example

Facts

A construction company builds a tower. Five years after handover, a structural defect threatens the building's stability.

The owner does not necessarily need to prove:

"The contractor was negligent."

Instead, the owner may rely on the statutory decennial-liability regime, provided the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The analysis becomes:

1. Was there a qualifying building/fixed installation?
2. Was the claimant entitled to invoke the regime?
3. Did total/partial collapse or a qualifying structural defect occur?
4. Did it arise within the statutory period?
5. Are the contractor and engineer within the statutory category?
6. Does an applicable statutory exception exist?
7. What compensation is legally recoverable?

This illustrates why decennial liability is fundamentally different from ordinary negligence.

30. Conclusion

UAE non-fault liability is a targeted system of risk allocation rather than a general rule of automatic compensation. The most important examples are liability connected with dangerous things and machinery, special responsibility for animals and buildings, and the particularly significant decennial liability of contractors and engineers for qualifying structural defects.

The central principles are:

No need to prove ordinary fault + legally recognized risk + damage + causal connection = possible non-fault liability.

However:

Non-fault does not mean no causation, no statutory conditions, or unlimited liability.

The modern framework must now be read principally through Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective 1 June 2026. The older UAE cases remain useful for understanding established principles, but their former article numbers should not be presented as if they were provisions of the new Civil Transactions Law.