The facts of the case were as follows. On 29 July 1989, the plaintiffs, a married couple, held their wedding reception with fifty-four guests at a restaurant operated by the second defendant. After the event, the plaintiffs and several guests experienced food poisoning caused by Salmonella enteritidis present in the dessert served, which included pudding, pudding cream, and vanilla ice cream. It was later determined that the dessert had been prepared the evening before by the first defendant—the wife of the restaurant owner—and their daughter, both of whom were carriers of Salmonella. The plaintiffs sought reimbursement of 3,000 DM for the cost of the reception, compensation of 800 DM for the fourday postponement of their honeymoon, and non-pecuniary damages of 1,500 DM each for pain and suffering. The BGH accordingly partly overturned the decision of the lower court, holding that the restaurant proprietor bore the burden of demonstrating that he had not acted negligently, including with respect to the source of the ingredients and the observance of hygiene standards. In contrast, the court denied the liability of the co-defendant, who had prepared the dish, on the grounds that she was not the proprietor of the establishment. In its legal reasoning, the BGH reaffirmed the principle, established in previous case law such as the “Hühnerpest” decision, that in cases of producer liability, the burden of proof is reversed. As a general rule in civil liability, the injured party bears the burden of proving the fault of the alleged wrongdoer. However, in matters of defective products, it is the producer who must present and prove facts demonstrating the absence of fault in the production process. The decision established an important precedent in the field of producer liability. It confirmed that the reversal of the burden of proof, originally developed for industrial producers, is equally applicable to small-scale businesses. In the case at hand, following a Salmonella outbreak during a wedding reception, the restaurant owner was required to prove that he was not responsible for the contamination of the food, rather than the affected customers having to demonstrate his negligence. The court justified this extension based on the fact that the producer, regardless of the size of the business, exercises control over the production process and is therefore better positioned to investigate and explain the cause of any defect. The central question before the BGH was whether this principle also applies to small artisanal businesses such as family-run restaurants. The court answered in the affirmative. It held that the rationale underpinning producer liability— the producer’s control over the manufacturing process and organizational XLVII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==