sphere—applies irrespective of the size of the enterprise. Consumers continue to be unable to access information regarding food preparation, ingredient sourcing, and hygiene practices. Although small businesses lack the extensive control mechanisms available to industrial producers, the BGH observed that their simpler and more transparent production processes make it easier for them to identify possible sources of error and to produce exculpatory evidence. The court also noted that there are no objective criteria to distinguish between small, medium, and large enterprises, and that any attempt to do so—such as by reference to the number of employees—would yield arbitrary results. Furthermore, the court emphasized the coherence of its position with the Product Liability Act (Produkthaftungsgesetz) of 1990, which does not distinguish between industrial and artisanal production and whose principles should be applied consistently in both statutory and general tort law contexts. Applying these principles, the BGH held that the appellate court had erred in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs. As the “producer” of the food served, the restaurant owner bore the responsibility of proving that he was not at fault for the contamination. The case was remitted to the appellate court to determine whether the restaurant owner could rebut the presumption of negligence by showing that he had exercised due diligence. This included demonstrating appropriate hygienic supervision of family members involved in food preparation, exclusion of contamination through his own conduct, and proper verification of ingredients purchased from third parties. Conversely, the court upheld the acquittal of the first defendant, the wife who had prepared the dessert. The reversal of the burden of proof does not extend to employees or relatives of the proprietor unless they occupy a special representative position within the enterprise. Accordingly, the plaintiffs retained the burden of proving her individual fault—such as knowledge of her carrier status and failure to take appropriate precautions—which they failed to establish. The BGH also clarified that the existence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the restaurant owner did not exclude the concurrent application of delictual (tortious) liability. German jurisprudence recognizes the coexistence and autonomy of contractual and extracontractual liability, and it would be unjust if wedding guests without a contractual relationship enjoyed a more favorable evidentiary position than the contracting parties themselves. Regarding the plaintiffs’ additional claims, the court upheld the restaurant owner’s obligation to refund the full cost of the reception. According to the XLVIII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==