Through this decision, the court elucidated both the contractual framework governing hospitality services and the interrelation between contractual performance and fiscal compliance in German civil and tax law. It affirmed that the obligation to pay for catering services arises only when the service provider has met all ancillary duties, including the issuance of an invoice that enables the recipient to exercise its tax deduction rights, thereby linking private contractual obligations with public-law requirements under the VAT regime. 7. Duty of care owed by an innkeeper to an intoxicated customer The judgment of the Oberlandesgericht München of 11 February 1966 (10 U 2121/65) examined the duty of care owed by an innkeeper to an intoxicated customer who leaves the premises. The case arose from an action brought by a social insurance institution seeking to hold the son-in-law of a tavern owner liable for the death of an elderly, inebriated patron who, after being expelled from the establishment for threatening other guests, later died in a traffic accident. The court held that the defendant acted in legitimate defence when removing the patron, and that, as a general rule, innkeepers are not legally required to take protective measures or notify authorities when an intoxicated customer leaves, unless the circumstances indicate an immediate and recognisable threat to their safety. Consequently, the court found no civil or criminal liability on the part of the defendant, whose conduct was deemed lawful. The decision emphasises an important principle regarding the civil liability of tavern owners or their employees when an intoxicated customer suffers harm after leaving the premises. The court ruled that, as a general principle, an innkeeper does not owe a duty to ensure the safe journey home of a drunk guest, particularly when the individual arrived already intoxicated, consumed little or no additional alcohol, and was expelled due to menacing behaviour. Expulsion in such circumstances is considered a legitimate act of defence of property and third parties. Only in exceptional cases, where it is clearly evident that the departing customer faces immediate and recognisable danger to life or physical integrity, could a duty of care be established. Since no such danger was apparent in the case at hand, the defendant was cleared of all civil liability for the subsequent accident. The plaintiff was a social insurance organisation that, having paid a widow’s pension to the deceased’s spouse, sought reimbursement from the defendant. The XXXVII
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==