The restauranteur is concerned as a manufacturer (in the sense of producer liability) of the food prepared in his restaurant: The production of food and its supply to the customer as performance of the contract is clearly in the foreground compared to the other elements of services in the catering contract209. The question arises210 whether the owner of a small business or restaurant whose manufacturing process is manageable and transparent (sometimes family or single-owner businesses) can also be expected to assume the risk of burden of proof or of proving its exemption from liability211. No clear answer emerges as the product liability legal framework makes no distinction between production in large or small businesses and does not allow liability to depend on whether the product originates from industrial or artisanal production212. 8.5.4.4. Liability of the Supplier of Services (in Greek law) Along with the protection provided in the case of defective products213, Article 8 of the Greek Consumer Protection Law establishes the liability of the supplier of services214; the consumer who is the recipient of illegal and faulty services may seek compensation from the supplier thereof for both the damage of property EU (supra n. 204). 209 See though Gert Brüggemeier, Producer liability for owners of restaurants? Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1983, 116 et seq. (https://www.juris.de/perma?d=jzs-VVW02-034-1983-05-0116-0006) according to whom we have in that sense a transferring of the principles of producer liability to the service companies. Compare also the decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), from 19.11.1991, Nr. VI ZR 171/91, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 1992, 410-415 (annotated by Gert Brüggemeier, p. 415-417). 210 Similar thoughts could be formulated in the case of the hotelier (innkeeper) liability vis-à-vis the customer bringing things onto the premises of innkeepers, see Art. 834 GCC, § 701 BGB, infra n. 240; compare Olaf Werner, in Andreas Bergmann, Marcus Bieder & Olaf Werner (ed.), Staudinger Kommentar BGB (2021), Vorbemerkung zu §§ 701 et seq. Rn. 17-20 (in German: „Verkehrssicherungsplichten”), compare with the ‘duty of care’ or the ‘manufacturer general duty of safety’; referring also to his burden of proof, for example with regard to a reversal of his burden of proof according to the principles of producer liability (food) also in the frame of tortious (fault) liability, i.e., § 823 German BGB, see Friedrich Graf v. Westphalen, in Erman/BGB-Kommentar, 17. Aufl., 2023, § 701 BGB Rn. 3. 211 See Art. 7 of the Directive 85/374/EEC; compare Art. 11 of the Directive 2024/2853/EU (supra n. 204) 212 Cf. in the German doctrine, Walter Rolland, Produkthaftungsrecht I (1990), § 2 Produkthaftungsgesetz, Rz. 3-4; Wofgang Wellner, in Geigel, Der Haftpflichtprozess, 24. Aufl., 2024, Kapitel 14, Rn. 310; Joachim Schmidt-Salzer & Hermann H. Hollmann, Kommentar EG-Richtlinie Produkthaftung I, Recht u. Wirtschaft: Heidelberg, 1986, Art. 2 Rz. 63 et seq.; Hans C. Taschner & Edwin Frietsch, Produkthaftungsgesetz und EG-Produkthaftungs-Richtlinie, 2. Aufl., 1990, § 2 Produkthaftungsgesetz Rz. 1 et seq. Compare the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), supra n. 204, under II a) bb). 213 Ιn the Explanatory Memorandum (article 7) to Greek Law Nr. 2251/1994 (supra N. 120), is stated that the Proposal for a (EEC) Directive for liability of service providers served as the model for Article 8 of the Law [see the second Draft Proposal for a Directive for liability of service providers, CONSOM 20/ECO 86/6378/92, 12.05.1992]. 214 The injured party also may not be precluded from bringing an action against the service provider who caused the damage on the basis of the provisions of joint contractual, i.e., on the ground of work contract or salaried mandate (supra n. 52, 59) or joint tortious liability under the Civil Code (concurrence of claims). 104 APOSTOLOS TASSIKAS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==