The following paper discusses the efficacy of civil provisions in addressing veterinary malpractice and liability in Jordan by focusing on the legal liability of veterinarians. This paper discusses the distinction between contractual liability and tort liability by recognizing gaps in laws that cause judicial ambiguity among owners and veterinarians. This qualitative description and analytical paper discusses judicial interpretation, legislatory shortfalls, and ethical factors in veterinary civil liability.

The outcomes indicate that while tending to practice in accordance with a duty of care in general, Jordanian veterinarians have no explicit malpractice laws to regulate practice in this manner. This creates inconsistencies in judicial judgments. This comparative viewpoint emphasizes the significance of systematic changes in legislation to clarify veterinary liability, judicial consistency, and incorporation of professional ethics in legally binding rules.

The report is in favor of bringing in specialized malpractice laws in veterinary practice, mandatory malpractice insurance, and better judicial training programs. It is also in favor of increased awareness among citizens, alternate modes of settling disputes, and the introduction of technology in veterinary judicial systems. Future research should consider examining empirical malpractice case studies, implications of future emerging technologies, and veterinary liability in public health.