taken any samples for testing. They all were found guilty of negligent distribution of food that is harmful to health. The court granted the claims for damages. The defendant was aware that he was supplied with water that was already contaminated even without additional sewage contamination and could only be made drinkable by using a chlorination system. The possibility of a deterioration in the quality of the spring water due to the impact of sewage, which seeped away in large quantities so close to the spring, had been so obvious that it must have been completely clear to the defendant. It was highly probable that this would endanger the guests of the restaurant and its staff through drinking water contamination (especially since no checks, let alone ongoing checks, of the water quality were carried out by means of water sample analyses).The defendant therefore culpably violated the contractual obligation to the guests not to endanger their health by serving contaminated food.20 3.2. Conclusions Where guests are injured by contaminated food the restaurateur will almost automatically be held liable. Unlike cases involving public safety, liability is stricter here because the restaurant operator has a duty to perform successfully. If it is proven that the damage was caused by unsafe food, the restaurant operator would have to prove that they were not at fault, which is only possible in individual cases, e.g. if purchased food was unsafe without this being recognisable or detectable by reasonable and appropriate means. The investigation obligations depend primarily on the type of food. 20 OLG Innsbruck jugment of 08.01.1993, 4 R 301/92. 199 LIABILITY ISSUES IN THE GASTRONOMY SECTOR
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==