are interconnected factors: an obvious hazard will not lead to liability if the injury occurs because the plaintiff failed to notice it, while hidden dangers may require a higher duty of care from the operator. The decision further emphasises the evidentiary and legal significance of a plaintiff’s familiarity with the premises, which can substantially weaken claims of unexpected danger. Finally, it places the standard of care in hospitality contexts within a realistic understanding of guest behaviour, recognising that while operators must anticipate some level of distraction among patrons, visitors remain under a corresponding duty to exercise ordinary caution. In conclusion, the judicial decision demonstrates a careful and principled balancing of duty, breach, and causation. By refusing to attribute the accident to a hypothetical failure to mark a step, given the plaintiff’s own inattentiveness and familiarity with the premises, the court reaffirmed the centrality of causation and contributory negligence in the assessment of tort claims. The decision thus provides a coherent illustration of how German courts allocate responsibility in premises liability cases, emphasising that even where additional precautions might have been advisable, liability cannot arise in the absence of a proven causal connection between the operator’s omission and the injury sustained. X. The legality of self-help in a restaurant The decision of the Bavarian Higher Regional Court (BayObLG) of 18 October 1990 concerns the limits and conditions of the right of self-help (Selbsthilferecht) under § 229 BGB, particularly in the context of a customer attempting to leave a restaurant without paying for a disputed meal. The case stemmed from an incident on 15 May 1989, when a restaurant employee physically detained a customer who refused to pay for a dish he deemed unsatisfactory. The court considered whether the employee’s act of imprisoning the customer was legally justified, referencing § 32 of the German Penal Code (StGB) and § 22915 BGB. The factual background was as follows: after ordering a goose breast dish priced at sixteen Deutsche Marks, the customer refused to accept it, claiming 15 “Self-help A person who, for the purpose of self-help, removes, destroys or damages a thing, or a person who, for the purpose of self-help, arrests an obliged person who is suspected of flight, or overcomes the resistance to an act of an obliged person who has a duty to tolerate that act, does not act unlawfully if help cannot be obtained from the authorities in good time and there is a danger, without immediate intervention, that the realisation of the claim will be prevented or be considerably more difficult.”. XLIV
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==