could have foreseen that the cellar (and thus the cellar stairs) would also be used by guests or that such use would be encouraged by any circumstances, even if this was contrary to the designated use of these premises. In view of the adequate signage on the cellar door, this must be denied. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s appeal and reinstated the original judgment9: The defendant was to be blamed for creating a considerable source of danger by leaving a door unlocked leading to a basement staircase in the immediate vicinity of the toilet, where lighting conditions were difficult for most toilet users, which could have been easily remedied by locking this door. The high alpine location of the hut did not change this obligation. 2.1.5. A dance on broken glass Case 6 Ob 221/18w concerned a dancing event which took place in a restaurant. Around midnight, the plaintiff fell inside the beer bar of the restaurant and was severely injured by broken glass on the floor. According to the findings in first instance, it could not be established that the defendant had been aware of the broken glass. The plaintiff also did not assert that they had been aware of any specific reason for cleaning the floor. The Supreme Court concurred with the opinion of the lower courts that a thorough inspection of the floor during the event without specific cause would exceed the organiser’s duty of care. The fact that a single piece of broken glass was found on the was therefore not to indicate a breach of the defendant’s duty to ensure public safety.10 However, as the plaintiff also alledged that an employee of the defendant had pushed her and caused her to fall, the Supreme Court referred the case back to the apellate court to further investigate the cause for the plaintiff’s fall. 2.1.6. The hazardous paprica In another case, the plaintiff slipped on a piece of paprika that had fallen on the floor at the breakfast buffet of a Hungarian hotel. At that time, there were several guests at the breakfast buffet, but it was not particularly crowded. The plaintiff would have had a clear view of the floor in front of her. Apart from the piece of paprica and a cherry tomato, the floor at the breakfast buffet was clean. Although the lawsuit was not directed against the hotel operator but against a package organiser, it nevertheless concerned alleged breaches of duty by the hotel 9 OGH judgment of 28.05.1999, 7 Ob 66/99b. 10 OGH order of 27.06.2019, 6 Ob 221/18w. 193 LIABILITY ISSUES IN THE GASTRONOMY SECTOR
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==