By Felix Kong｜Licensed Insurance Agent
Looper Insurance Agency Limited (GA1034)
Published: 2026-08-25｜Last updated: 2026-08-25

Public Liability (PL) insurance covers your legal liability for accidental bodily injury or property damage caused to a third party. Now that Hong Kong restaurants can apply to admit dogs, a dog bite has stopped being a street problem and become a premises operator's problem. This article works through three real Hong Kong dog-bite decisions (anonymised, figures rounded) to answer two questions — who is liable, and for how much — and then works backwards from those numbers to how a shop or restaurant should set its PL limit.

Table of Contents

1. Who actually gets sued

2. How liability is decided: scienter and special circumstances

3. Three decisions: from nil to HKD 960,000

4. Working backwards to your PL limit

5. Three traps that matter more than the limit

6. FAQ

1. Who Actually Gets Sued

A claimant does not pick one defendant. They join everyone connected to the incident, which in practice means:

• The owner of the dog — primary responsibility

• The keeper who was actually controlling the dog that day — often a different person, such as a friend minding the dog

• The premises operator — restaurant, mall or estate management — attacked on premises management, seating layout, staff response and whether reasonable care was taken

"The dog wasn't mine" is not a defence. A premises operator is rarely sued on the basis that its dog bit someone; it is sued on the basis that, having admitted dogs, it failed to manage the premises properly. That distinction matters: the first allegation you can shrug off, the second you cannot — and the second is precisely what public liability insurance responds to.

2. How Liability Is Decided: Scienter and Special Circumstances

Hong Kong applies the common law scienter principle. In simplified terms, an owner or keeper is liable where:

1. The dog belongs to a dangerous category, or has been declared a known dangerous dog by a court; or

2. The owner knew of the dog's vicious propensity and took no steps — knew it was trouble, did nothing.

There is a third route: the dog is ordinarily docile with no history, but special circumstances arise on the day that make a reaction foreseeable, and the owner does nothing about it. That is negligence.

The statutory layer sits alongside:

3. Three Decisions: From Nil to HKD 960,000

(Real Hong Kong decisions, anonymised with figures rounded for illustration.)

Case A — Student bitten by a golden retriever: no award

A university student had been at a friend's home over several days of gatherings. In the early hours, watching a film alone, she was bitten by a golden retriever kept at the property, suffering facial and eye injuries and psychological harm.

The court found the owner not liable. The golden retriever is a docile breed and there was no evidence of any vicious propensity. The plaintiff pointed to a Facebook comment describing the dog as badly behaved, but did not call the commenter to give evidence, so the court did not treat it as evidence. No special circumstances arose that night. Why the dog bit at all, the court could not say — a dog cannot give evidence.

The valuable point here: being bitten does not guarantee an award. Hong Kong does not impose strict liability; the plaintiff must prove knowledge or negligence. The court noted that had liability been established on appeal, damages would have been around HKD 310,000 — so even a hard-fought case sits in six figures.

Case B — Two Tibetan Mastiffs in a housing estate: about HKD 960,000

A young woman walking through a housing estate was attacked by two Tibetan Mastiffs weighing over 40 kg. Both dogs had previously bitten people. On the day they were unleashed, unmuzzled and not effectively controlled. The owner and the keeper — a mother and her son — were both held liable.

Every aggravating factor was present: known history, breach of statutory control requirements, a young claimant, and permanent facial scarring. The cosmetic treatment cost for facial scarring is the head of damages people most consistently underestimate.

Case C — A docile golden retriever and "special circumstances": about HKD 360,000

A massage therapist accepted a male client's invitation to his home. She later refused his advances and pushed him away, at which point his golden retriever — raised from a puppy, with no history of biting — rushed out and bit her face and eyes.

The court held the owner liable. Although the dog was docile and had no history, the physical altercation was a special circumstance and the dog defending its owner was a foreseeable reaction; having chosen to act as he did, the owner should have shut the dog away or secured it beforehand. Damages of about HKD 360,000.

Case C is the most instructive of the three for a business. It establishes that "my dog has always been good" is not a shield. Once something foreseeable happens on the floor that can provoke a dog — an argument, something dropped, a child rushing over, another dog squaring up — and management does nothing, liability becomes arguable. For restaurants and shops, that is exactly where seating layout and staff emergency training earn their keep.

4. Working Backwards to Your PL Limit

These decisions do not give you a standard limit. They give you a method:

1. Start from the worst case. A single dog-bite claim with permanent scarring and loss of income can approach HKD 1,000,000.

2. Add defence costs. PL policies indemnify legal costs incurred with the insurer's consent, but whether those costs sit inside the limit (costs-inclusive) or on top of it (costs-in-addition) varies by policy. Ask.

3. Assume more than one claim in a year. Check whether your limit is any one occurrence or an aggregate for the policy period. An aggregate limit caps the year, and the second claim may find nothing left.

4. Read the lease. Malls, landlords and management companies frequently specify a minimum PL limit as a condition of trading. That is a hard floor — take it from the lease wording, not from memory.

One question worth putting to your insurance agent: "Is my limit per occurrence or in the aggregate, and are defence costs inside or outside it?" The answer to that pair often affects what you actually recover more than the headline limit does.

5. Three Traps That Matter More Than the Limit

• Exclusions. Some liability policies carry animal-related exclusions or conditions. Read them word for word before you admit dogs.

• Excess. The amount you bear on each claim. Raising the limit while the excess rises alongside it can leave your real position unchanged.

• Notice of change in risk. FEHD guideline 1.42 requires operators to notify their insurer that dogs are permitted and to confirm the coverage position. No notice, plus a policy condition requiring notice of material change in risk, equals an argument at claim stage.

FAQ

Q: If one customer's dog bites another customer, is my shop liable?

A: The dog owner bears primary responsibility, but claimants routinely sue the owner, the person controlling the dog and the premises operator together, on the basis of inadequate premises management and staff response. That is exactly what your public liability policy answers, so "the dog wasn't mine" does not keep you out of the proceedings.

Q: What do Hong Kong dog-bite claims typically pay?

A: The range is very wide. The cases above run from no award (docile dog, no history, no special circumstances) to about HKD 960,000 (known biting history, statutory control breaches, permanent facial scarring), with a case at about HKD 360,000 in between. Claims involving facial scarring and cosmetic treatment sit noticeably higher.

Q: My dog has never bitten anyone — am I safe?

A: Not necessarily. Besides knowledge of a vicious propensity, the law also asks whether special circumstances arose that made a reaction foreseeable — an argument, a shove, another dog squaring up — and whether the keeper did anything about it. In Case C above the dog had no history and the owner still paid about HKD 360,000.

Q: How much public liability cover should I buy?

A: There is no universal figure. Three things decide it: the minimum limit specified in your lease (a hard floor), the worst-case single claim plus defence costs, and whether your limit is per occurrence or an annual aggregate. Bring the policy and the lease together to work it out properly.

Q: Is public liability insurance compulsory in Hong Kong?

A: No. There is no statutory requirement for a business to buy public liability cover, unlike employees' compensation (Cap. 282) and motor third-party (Cap. 272). In practice, however, leases from malls, landlords and management companies commonly make PL a condition of trading, which makes it effectively mandatory.

Next Step

Want to know whether your PL limit stands up against decisions like these? Send us your policy, schedule and the insurance clause in your lease. We will check the basis of the limit, the exclusions and the excess, and tell you whether an adjustment is warranted.

Related Articles

• Dogs in Hong Kong restaurants: three questions for your insurer

• A customer's dog bit our waiter: a real employees' compensation claim

• Shop package or standalone public liability?

• Public Liability Insurance in Hong Kong (English Guide)

Free Quote

Looper Insurance Agency Limited (GA1034) offers a free public liability policy review and quotation service.
Phone: 2633 6813
Email: cs@looperin.com
Website: www.looperin.com

Disclaimer: This article is for reference only and does not constitute insurance or legal advice. Case figures are anonymised and rounded for illustration and do not indicate the likely outcome of any particular matter. Coverage is subject to policy terms and conditions. For legal questions, consult a solicitor.