danger to life or limb. The court determined that W., although intoxicated, was not in such a state. He had entered the tavern unaided, climbing several steps, and his condition had not deteriorated during his stay. The court observed that intoxication alone does not constitute helplessness in the legal sense. There was no evidence that W. faced an immediate and obvious danger upon leaving; it was still plausible that he could reach home safely via a short route that did not involve heavy traffic. The presence of some icy patches on the road did not establish an unavoidable or recognisable risk known to the defendant. In discussing the alleged general duty of care, the court confirmed that, as a general rule, neither an innkeeper nor their staff are legally required to take protective measures for an intoxicated customer who leaves the premises. There is no overarching duty to summon the police or medical assistance in such cases. A duty of care may only arise in exceptional circumstances, where it is clearly evident that the customer faces immediate danger upon departure. The case before the court did not meet this threshold, as W. showed no visible incapacity. Furthermore, the fact that he had arrived already intoxicated and consumed only a minimal amount of alcohol on site strengthened the absence of such a duty. Other bases of liability were also dismissed. The allegation of failure to render assistance under §330c StGB was abandoned on appeal, as the situation did not constitute an “accident” requiring intervention. Nor could civil liability arise under §823 BGB, since the defendant’s actions were lawful and justified by legitimate defence. In its final decision, the Higher Regional Court of Munich upheld the lower court’s ruling and fully acquitted the defendant. The court held that he had acted lawfully in expelling the drunken patron and that no breach of any legal duty of care or penal provision had occurred. As the defendant’s conduct was deemed lawful, the court did not address the issue of the deceased’s contributory negligence. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety. VIII. The decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe on the Right to Price Reduction (Minderungsrecht) in a Catering Agreement (Bewirtungsvertrag) The decision of Landgericht Karlsruhe established a precedent concerning the right to a price reduction in a catering contract due to significant service XXXIX
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==