A Munich district court has ruled that a delivery driver who scrambled onto the bonnet of a Porsche Cayenne to escape three unleashed dogs does not have to pay for the damage to the luxury vehicle.

The case centred on a tense encounter outside a home in Freising, north of Munich, where the driver arrived to drop off a parcel. As he approached the front door, two Dalmatians and a mixed-breed dog suddenly rushed out of the house. Startled, the man reacted instinctively, leaping onto the bonnet of a Porsche Cayenne parked nearby.

The car’s owner later claimed that the incident left the SUV’s bonnet scratched and dented, submitting a repair bill of more than 2,700 euros. When both the driver and his employer refused to accept liability, the dispute landed before the Munich District Court.

In its ruling, the court sided with the driver and his company on two key grounds. First, judges found it was not proven that the contested damage had actually been caused by the man’s desperate escape. Photographs submitted as evidence appeared to have been taken months after the incident, raising doubts about whether all the scratches and dents could be traced to that single moment.

Second, the court placed responsibility on the dog owner, stressing that anyone keeping dogs must ensure they are properly controlled, especially when expecting visitors such as delivery personnel. Even though the owner and a witness insisted the animals were three to four metres away and showed no real aggression, the court said that was not enough to absolve the owner of his duty.

The judges noted that the dogs had barked and run toward the driver, behaviour they deemed sufficient to trigger a legitimate “flight reflex” in a person confronted unexpectedly by several unleashed animals. In such circumstances, the court concluded, the driver’s reaction was understandable and could not be held against him financially.

The decision underscores the legal obligation of dog owners in Germany to prevent their animals from intimidating or endangering others, and it clarifies that a panicked response to an apparent threat can be considered reasonable, even when it results in damage to property.