enforcement of its rights. Detention aimed solely at establishing identity could, in principle, constitute legitimate self-help under § 229 BGB, as it serves to secure rather than to satisfy the claim. However, this justification did not apply in the present case. The lower court had neither determined that the customer’s identity was unknown nor shown that the waitress acted solely to obtain the customer’s identification. The available evidence suggested instead that her sole intent was to compel payment, which invalidates the applicability of § 229 BGB as a justification. On this basis, the BayObLG annulled the conviction. The decision did not affirm the defendant’s conduct as lawful but concluded that the lower courts had failed to establish the factual and legal prerequisites necessary to determine whether the waitress’s initial act of restraint was unlawful. Without that determination, the defendant’s plea of self-defence under § 32 StGB could not be properly assessed. The ruling clarifies several principles. It affirms that detaining a person for the purpose of identifying them may, under certain circumstances, constitute lawful self-help, provided it serves merely to secure a claim and not to enforce its immediate satisfaction. Conversely, the use of force or coercion to compel payment of a debt is unlawful. Finally, the decision underscores the decisive role of the actor’s subjective intention: the legality of self-help depends not only on the existence of an underlying right but also on whether the measure taken was genuinely directed at securing that right rather than at achieving instant enforcement. XI. Reversal of the burden of proof for small businesses such as restaurants In the 1991 decision (VI ZR 171/91), the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) examined the application of the principle of reversing the burden of proof in cases of producer liability involving small businesses, such as restaurants. The case stemmed from an incident where guests at a wedding banquet contracted salmonella poisoning after eating a contaminated dessert. The court ruled that the principle requiring a producer to prove the absence of fault when a defective product causes harm also applies to the owner of a small restaurant. This decision was based on the reasoning that such an owner has direct and exclusive knowledge of the production processes and is therefore better placed to determine the cause of the defect. XLVI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==