risk but applies only to dangers that pose a significant likelihood of harm to an ordinarily observant visitor. The court noted that, in restaurant settings, operators must anticipate that patrons might be distracted by social interaction or alcohol consumption, and therefore must adopt reasonable precautions suitable to such environments. Considering the facts of the case, the court observed that the height of the step, its contrasting colour, and the directional cue provided by a nearby billiard table made the level change sufficiently conspicuous. Although the operator may have marked the edge of the step more clearly, the court declined to determine whether a breach of the duty of traffic safety had occurred, as the appeal could be decided solely on causation grounds. Causation was therefore the key issue. Under German tort law, a defendant’s breach must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The court reasoned that even if the lack of a visible marking on the step was a breach, this omission could not have caused the fall, as the plaintiff admitted that he had turned his head away at the critical moment and was not watching his path. A coloured marking on the edge of the step would have been equally unnoticed in these circumstances. The plaintiff’s inattentive behaviour, rather than any omission by the defendant, was therefore the main cause of the accident. This conclusion was supported by the visibility of the step and the plaintiff’s previous familiarity with the premises, which together made the claim of surprise unlikely. The court further held that the plaintiff’s conduct amounted to significant contributory negligence under § 25414 BGB. By turning his head away and failing to keep his path in view in an environment he knew well, the plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of personal fault. Although such negligence might have sufficed to exclude the defendant’s liability entirely, the court found it unnecessary to determine the precise apportionment of fault, as the claim failed on causation grounds in any event. Doctrinally, the judgment highlights several important points for German tort law. It reaffirms the importance of causation, stating that liability cannot be established without a proven causal link between the breach and the resulting harm. It also clarifies that the visibility of a hazard and the plaintiff’s awareness of it 14 “Contributory negligence Where fault on the part of the injured person contributes to the occurrence of the damage, liability in damages as well as the extent of compensation to be paid depend on the circumstances, in particular to what extent the damage is caused mainly by one or the other party. This also applies if the fault of the injured person is limited to failing to draw the attention of the obligor to the danger of unusually extensive damage, where the obligor neither was nor ought to have been aware of the danger, or to failing to avert or reduce the damage. The provision of section 278 applies with the necessary modifications.”. XLIII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==