The plaintiff’s inattentive conduct and his prior familiarity with the premises were identified as the decisive causal factors. The case thus sheds light on the interaction of premises liability, causation, and contributory negligence under German tort law, particularly under §§ 823 and 254 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Premises liability claims in German law generally require proof of three elements: the existence of a duty to take precautions against hazards, a breach of that duty, and a causal link between the breach and the plaintiff’s harm. The court affirms the primacy of causation in the adjudication of tort claims, emphasising that proof of a breached duty is insufficient unless the breach is shown to have caused the injury. The decision, therefore, offers doctrinal clarification on the allocation of responsibility between property owners and visitors. The facts of the case involved an incident that occurred on 4 February 2008 at approximately 12:15 p.m., when the plaintiff fell in a restaurant operated by the defendant near the counter. He claimed that an unmarked recessed area or “deep hole” in the floor caused his fall as he was heading towards the restroom. The fall resulted in serious injuries requiring multiple surgeries and led to an assessed degree of disability, for which the plaintiff sought compensation for pain and suffering. The District Court of Saarbrücken (O 221/08) dismissed the case, finding that the defendant’s conduct was not the proximate cause of the accident and that the plaintiff’s own inattention contributed significantly to the fault. On appeal, the Higher Regional Court upheld the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments and confirming the lower court’s legal conclusions. In its review of the evidence, the appellate court accepted that the plaintiff had fallen as described and that a level change of approximately thirty centimetres existed at the site. Witness testimony, however, established that the plaintiff was a regular patron familiar with the restaurant’s layout, thereby undermining his later assertions of unfamiliarity. The court also considered credibility issues raised initially but found the plaintiff’s admission that he had turned his head to greet patrons at the counter immediately before the fall to be decisive. Addressing the duty of traffic safety under § 82313 BGB, the court reaffirmed that a proprietor who opens premises to the public must take reasonable measures to prevent harm to visitors. This duty does not extend to eliminating every possible 13 “Liability in damages (1) A person who, intentionally or negligently, unlawfully injures the life, body, health, freedom, property or another right of another person is liable to make compensation to the other party for the damage arising from this. (2) The same duty is held by a person who commits a breach of a statute that is intended to protect another person. If, according to the contents of the statute, it may also be breached without fault, then liability to compensation only exists in the case of fault.”. XLII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==