Civil Law And UAE Presumed Liability Rules

1. Introduction

Presumed liability means a legal situation where the injured person does not have to prove every element of ordinary fault in the usual way because the law creates a presumption of responsibility against a particular person.

The person against whom the presumption operates may sometimes escape liability by proving a statutory defence, such as:

• an extraneous cause;
• force majeure;
• transfer of custody or control;
• proper supervision;
• unavoidable damage; or
• absence of the legally required causal connection.

This is different from ordinary fault-based liability, where the claimant generally has to establish the wrongful act, damage and causal connection.

The UAE's current Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which came into force on 1 June 2026 and repealed the 1985 Civil Transactions Law.

2. Meaning of Presumed Liability

Presumed liability can be understood through this formula:

Protected interest + legally identified risk + statutory presumption of responsibility + limited defence = presumed liability

For example:

A building collapses and injures a neighbouring person.

Instead of requiring the injured person to prove precisely which maintenance failure caused the collapse, the current law places responsibility on the custodian of the building, subject to specified defences.

Therefore, the evidentiary burden can shift toward the defendant.

3. Presumed Liability vs Ordinary Fault Liability

The distinction should not be overstated: some UAE regimes are more accurately described as strict/objective liability, while others are rebuttable presumptions of fault or responsibility.

4. Current UAE Civil Transactions Law: Important Provisions

The new Civil Transactions Law contains a particularly clear statutory structure.

A. Liability for acts of persons requiring supervision — Article 265

Article 265 provides liability for a person who is legally or contractually required to supervise a person needing supervision because of minority or mental/physical condition.

The supervisor can escape liability by proving:

1. that proper supervision was exercised; or
2. that the damage would necessarily have occurred even with proper supervision. 

This is a classic rebuttable presumption.

Example

A child causes serious damage to another person's property while under the supervision of a person legally responsible for the child.

The supervisor may be liable unless the supervisor establishes the statutory defence.

5. Vicarious Liability — Article 266

Article 266 provides that a principal/employer is responsible for damage caused by a subordinate when the harmful act occurs:

• during performance of the subordinate's duties; or
• because of those duties.

A relationship of subordination exists where the principal has actual authority to supervise and direct the subordinate.

This is important because the employer's personal negligence need not necessarily be the basis of liability.

The law focuses on the relationship of:

Principal → Control → Subordinate → Harm

The principal retains a right of recourse against the person who caused the harm under Article 267.

6. Presumption of Custody — Article 268

Article 268 is particularly important for presumed liability.

It defines the custodian of a thing as the person who has actual control over it, personally or through another person.

Most importantly:

The owner is presumed to be the custodian unless evidence establishes that custody has transferred to another person.

Thus:

Ownership → presumed custody → potential liability

but:

Proof of transfer of custody → presumption displaced

Example

A construction machine is owned by Company A but leased to Company B, which has actual control and operation of the machine.

Company A may attempt to rebut the presumption by proving that custody and actual control had transferred to Company B.

7. Liability for Animals — Article 269

Article 269 provides that the custodian of an animal, even if not the owner, is liable for damage caused by the animal.

The custodian can escape liability by proving that the incident resulted from an extraneous cause beyond his control.

Therefore:

Animal causes harm → custodian presumed responsible → extraneous cause may rebut liability

Ownership is not necessarily decisive.

8. Liability for Building Collapse — Article 270

Article 270 applies to collapse of buildings, including partial collapse.

The custodian of the building, even if not its owner, is responsible for resulting harm unless he establishes:

• an extraneous cause beyond his control; or
• that the event was not attributable to negligence in maintenance;
• aging of the building; or
• a defect in the building. 

This is an important shift from requiring the injured person to reconstruct every technical reason for the collapse.

Example

If part of a building façade collapses onto a pedestrian, the injured person can rely upon the statutory responsibility of the building's custodian. The custodian then has to address the statutory grounds for avoiding liability.

9. Liability for Dangerous Things and Mechanical Devices — Article 271

Article 271 provides that a person who has under his control:

• things requiring special care to prevent harm; or
• mechanical devices,

is responsible for damage caused by them, except for harm that could not have been guarded against, subject to special legislation.

This is one of the strongest examples of presumed/objective responsibility in UAE civil law.

It can be relevant to:

• heavy machinery;
• industrial equipment;
• elevators;
• automated systems;
• dangerous installations;
• construction equipment;
• potentially advanced autonomous technologies, depending on the facts and applicable special legislation.

Importantly, this provision does not automatically mean every machine-related accident creates liability. Causation and the statutory exception remain important.

10. Preventive Protection — Article 272

The current law also adopts a preventive approach.

Where a person is threatened by harm from:

• a building;
• an animal;
• a mechanical device; or
• another thing requiring special custody,

the threatened person can demand that the custodian or owner take necessary measures to avert the danger.

If the measures are not taken in time, judicial permission may be obtained, and in urgent circumstances necessary measures can be taken without prior judicial permission, subject to the statutory conditions.

Thus, UAE civil law does not merely provide compensation after harm.

It can also facilitate prevention of foreseeable harm.

11. Public Facilities — Article 273

Article 273 provides that use of public facilities is restricted by the safety of others.

A person who uses a public facility and causes harm that could have been prevented may be responsible.

This reflects the broader UAE principle that the exercise of a right is not unlimited where it creates preventable harm to others.

12. Important Case Laws

Because the current Civil Transactions Law only entered into force on 1 June 2026, many reported cases concerning presumed liability necessarily concern the repealed 1985 Civil Transactions Law. Those cases remain useful for understanding judicial treatment of the underlying concepts, but their old article numbers should not be presented as the current article numbers.

Case 1 — Dubai Cassation No. 243 of 1994

This is an important historical authority concerning liability arising from dangerous things and the distinction between ordinary delictual liability and liability associated with inherent danger.

The case is cited in UAE legal literature as supporting the proposition that certain dangerous-object cases do not require the claimant to prove conventional negligence in the same manner as an ordinary negligence claim.

Its significance is that the risk associated with control of the thing can itself be legally important.

Principle

Where a statutory dangerous-object regime applies, the claimant's evidentiary burden is materially different from a conventional negligence action.

Case 2 — Dubai Cassation No. 334 of 1995

This case is cited in connection with the burden of proof under the former dangerous-object liability provisions.

It is reported as confirming that, once the statutory conditions for the special liability regime are established, the defendant bears the relevant burden of establishing the basis for escaping responsibility rather than simply requiring the claimant to prove ordinary negligence.

Principle

A statutory presumption can alter the ordinary allocation of evidentiary responsibility.

Case 3 — Dubai Cassation No. 22 of 1999

This case concerned construction-related damage and the former Civil Code's contractor-guarantee regime.

The case is particularly significant because the court treated the contractor's responsibility as extending to damage caused by the contractor's work without requiring the claimant simply to establish conventional negligence; the contractor could rely on the statutory exception for an unavoidable event.

Principle

Certain UAE construction guarantees operate through a form of objective or presumed responsibility, with the contractor required to establish an appropriate defence.

Case 4 — Sharjah Roads and Transport Authority v Al-Futtaim Motors and Machinery (2019)

This case is discussed in UAE legal scholarship as an important authority concerning custodian liability for things under the former Article 316.

The analysis identifies the regime as objective/no-fault liability associated with control of a thing requiring special care, rather than ordinary presumed negligence.

Principle

The focus is on:

thing + custody/control + damage + causal connection

rather than simply asking whether the custodian personally acted negligently.

This case is particularly relevant to modern discussions concerning machinery and autonomous technologies.

Case 5 — George v Gloria Beauty Lounge LLC [2016] DIFC SCT 086

The DIFC case involved negligence rather than the mainland UAE custodian-liability provisions.

The DIFC Court explained that ordinary negligence requires:

1. duty of care;
2. breach;
3. causation; and
4. loss.

It also explained the applicable reasonable-care standard.

Relevance

This case provides a useful contrast.

It demonstrates that ordinary negligence is not automatically presumed. The claimant ordinarily must establish the necessary elements.

Therefore:

Presumed/objective liability ≠ ordinary negligence.

Case 6 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

The DIFC Court expressly analysed negligence under Articles 17–21 of the DIFC Law of Obligations.

It required duty, breach, causation and loss and examined whether the defendant's conduct was both a "but-for" and substantial cause of the claimant's loss.

Relevance

The case illustrates the evidentiary contrast between:

• an ordinary negligence claim, where the claimant establishes the necessary elements; and
• a statutory presumed-liability claim, where the legislature may shift part of the evidentiary burden to the defendant.

Case 7 — Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006

The DIFC Court of Appeal discussed possible contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk in the context of a negligence claim.

The judgment demonstrates that even where a claimant establishes a prima facie liability case, questions concerning the claimant's own conduct can remain relevant to the ultimate liability and compensation analysis.

Principle

A presumption of responsibility does not necessarily eliminate:

• causation questions;
• contributory negligence;
• voluntary assumption of risk; or
• other legally recognised defences.

Case 8 — BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC & Amer Affan [2021] DIFC CFI 106

The DIFC Court emphasised that a breach by itself is insufficient to establish compensation and that the claimant bears the burden of proving damage. The judgment also discussed the importance of the causal relationship between fault and damage.

Relevance

This provides another useful contrast with statutory presumed liability.

Even where liability is facilitated by a statutory presumption, damage and causation remain legally important.

13. Presumed Liability in Construction

Construction is one of the most important areas for presumed or objective liability.

Potentially relevant categories include:

A. Building collapse

Current Article 270.

B. Dangerous machinery

Current Article 271.

C. Contractor responsibility

Special construction provisions can impose enhanced responsibility concerning structural integrity and safety.

D. Decennial liability

The UAE construction regime also contains special long-term liability concerning serious defects affecting the stability or safety of buildings.

The 2025 Civil Transactions Law substantially reforms the construction provisions, so old case law must be carefully distinguished from the new statutory framework.

14. Presumed Liability and Employer Responsibility

The current Articles 265–267 create a structured system for liability for another person's acts.

Supervisor

Supervisory obligation → harmful act → presumed responsibility → defence of proper supervision

Employer/principal

Subordination → harmful act during/by reason of employment → principal liability → right of recourse

The current Article 266 specifically focuses on actual authority of supervision and direction.

This is important because an employer may face liability even where the employer did not personally commit the harmful act.

15. Presumed Liability and Causation

A common mistake is to assume:

"Presumed liability means automatic compensation."

That is incorrect.

Even under a presumed-liability regime, the court normally has to consider:

1. Was there a legally relevant event?

2. Is the defendant within the statutory category?

3. Did the relevant thing/person/animal/building cause the damage?

4. Does a statutory defence apply?

5. What damage was actually suffered?

Therefore:

Presumption reduces or changes the burden of proving fault/responsibility; it does not necessarily eliminate causation and damage.

This distinction is supported by the reasoning in UAE and DIFC cases concerning the essential role of causation.

16. Presumed Liability and Transfer of Custody

Article 268 is especially significant.

The law does not simply say:

Owner = always liable.

Instead:

Owner = presumed custodian unless custody is proved to have transferred.

Therefore, courts may need to examine:

• lease agreements;
• possession;
• operational control;
• maintenance responsibility;
• management contracts;
• agency arrangements;
• equipment rental;
• subcontracting;
• actual physical control.

Example

Company A owns a crane.

Company B leases and operates the crane.

If Company B has actual control and custody, Company A may attempt to rebut the statutory presumption of custody.

Thus, control can be more important than formal ownership.

17. Presumed Liability and Technology

The rules become particularly interesting for:

• autonomous vehicles;
• industrial robots;
• AI-controlled machinery;
• automated warehouses;
• drones;
• smart buildings;
• autonomous construction equipment.

Article 271 refers to things requiring special care and mechanical devices.

However, it would be premature to state that UAE courts have already definitively classified every autonomous AI system as a "thing" under Article 271.

The safer legal approach is:

Technology → identify controller/operator → identify applicable statutory category → establish causal connection → apply relevant presumption → consider statutory defences.

Academic analysis has specifically discussed the possibility of applying the former Article 316 concept to autonomous AI systems, but this remains an area requiring judicial development rather than an established blanket rule.

18. Presumed Liability vs Strict Liability

These expressions should be distinguished.

Presumed liability

The law creates a presumption that can potentially be rebutted.

Example:

Article 268: owner presumed to be custodian unless custody transfer is proved.

Objective/strict liability

Liability may arise without proving subjective fault, subject to statutory exclusions.

Example:

Article 271: responsibility for damage caused by certain things or mechanical devices, subject to the statutory exception for harm that could not have been guarded against.

Fault liability

The claimant generally establishes wrongful conduct/fault.

Thus:

Fault liability → prove fault

Presumed liability → statutory presumption shifts evidentiary burden

Objective liability → liability can exist without proof of personal fault

19. Defences Against Presumed Liability

Depending on the applicable provision, important defences may include:

1. Extraneous cause

The harm resulted from a cause outside the defendant's control.

2. Force majeure

An extraordinary and unavoidable event breaks the legal connection between the defendant's responsibility and the harm.

3. Transfer of custody

The defendant proves that actual custody was transferred to another person.

This is especially relevant under Article 268.

4. Proper supervision

Under Article 265, the supervisor can establish that proper supervision was exercised or that the damage would have occurred anyway.

5. Unavoidable harm

Article 271 excludes damage that could not have been guarded against.

6. Lack of causation

Even if the defendant falls within a statutory category, the claimant must still connect the relevant event to the alleged damage.

20. Practical Examples

Example 1 — Dog attack

A person keeps a dog.

The dog injures a pedestrian.

Under Article 269:

Custody of animal → injury → liability

The custodian may attempt to establish an extraneous cause beyond his control.

Example 2 — Building façade collapse

A building's façade falls onto a parked vehicle.

The building custodian faces the statutory responsibility under Article 270.

The custodian may attempt to establish:

• external cause;
• absence of maintenance negligence;
• aging not responsible;
• no building defect.

Example 3 — Industrial machine

A machine causes injury to a worker or visitor.

Article 271 may become relevant if the machine falls within the statutory category.

The central questions become:

• Who controlled it?
• Was special care required?
• Did the machine cause the damage?
• Could the damage have been prevented?

Example 4 — Employee causes damage

An employee negligently damages a customer's property while performing employment duties.

Article 266 may make the principal responsible where the statutory subordination and employment connection are established.

Example 5 — Child causes property damage

A child causes damage while under legally required supervision.

Article 265 may impose responsibility on the supervisor, subject to the supervisor proving proper supervision or unavoidable occurrence.

21. Key Legal Principles

The UAE approach can be summarised as follows:

1. Liability normally follows the person legally connected with the risk.
2. Ownership can create a presumption of custody.
3. Actual control may be more important than formal ownership.
4. Supervisors can bear responsibility for persons under their legal supervision.
5. Employers/principals can be liable for harmful acts of subordinates.
6. Animal custodians face statutory responsibility for animal-caused harm.
7. Building custodians face special responsibility for collapse.
8. Persons controlling dangerous things or mechanical devices can face enhanced responsibility.
9. Causation remains important.
10. Presumed liability is not identical to absolute liability.
11. Statutory defences can rebut or limit responsibility.
12. DIFC cases on negligence should not be treated as binding interpretations of mainland UAE Civil Transactions Law.

22. One-Minute Revision

Presumed Liability under UAE Civil Law =

A statutory mechanism that shifts or modifies the normal burden of proving fault/responsibility because a person has a legally recognised relationship of supervision, subordination, ownership, custody or control over the source of risk.

Current important provisions

• Article 265 — supervisor's liability
• Article 266 — principal/employer liability
• Article 267 — right of recourse
• Article 268 — presumption that owner is custodian
• Article 269 — animal custodian
• Article 270 — building custodian
• Article 271 — dangerous things/mechanical devices
• Article 272 — preventive measures
• Article 273 — use of public facilities 

Important cases

1. Dubai Cassation No. 243/1994 — dangerous-object/inherent-risk liability.
2. Dubai Cassation No. 334/1995 — burden of proof under special liability.
3. Dubai Cassation No. 22/1999 — contractor's enhanced responsibility.
4. Sharjah RTA v Al-Futtaim Motors and Machinery (2019) — custodian/object liability.
5. George v Gloria Beauty Lounge [2016] DIFC SCT 086 — ordinary negligence elements.
6. Haya Spa v Harper Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150 — duty, breach, causation and loss.
7. Oheo Bank v Parker [2025] DIFC CA 006 — contributory negligence and risk.
8. BAM Higgs & Hill v Affan [2021] DIFC CFI 106 — damage and causation.

Core formula:

Risk/Relationship → Statutory Presumption → Causation → Rebuttal/Defence → Compensation

Important current-law note: the 2025 Civil Transactions Law has been in force since 1 June 2026. The older 1985 Civil Code cases above should therefore be used as historical judicial authorities explaining the underlying doctrines, not as evidence that their old article numbers remain current.