Regional Labour Court Düsseldorf, 11.09.2017, Ref.: 9 Sa 42/17
According to Section 280 (1) BGB, the creditor can demand compensation for damages caused by a breach of duty by the debtor. This does not apply if the debtor is not responsible for the breach of duty. § Section 280 BGB applies to obligations arising from any type of obligation, i.e. contractual, statutory and also those arising from pre-contractual contacts, as well as from an ongoing "business relationship" (Section 311 II BGB). Likewise, the bases for claims for damages (§§ 280-283 BGB) are applicable accordingly to the obligation to return goods resulting from a cancellation (§ 346 IV BGB).
A breach of duty exists if the obligations arising from the contractual relationship are not or only insufficiently fulfilled. The scope of the obligation must be determined on the basis of the respective contractual obligation. All material and immaterial damages are compensable in this way (§§ 249 ff. BGB). Section 280 BGB therefore also applies to labour law contracts.
Facts of the Case:
Defendant had large waste containers in a car park
The defendant is a municipality that maintains a depot for the maintenance of municipal roads and green spaces. There are car parks for visitors and employees in front of the gate to the premises. Immediately to the side behind the gate are two large waste containers with a capacity of 1000 litres for the disposal of waste produced on the company premises. These large waste containers are fitted with parking brakes to prevent them from rolling away. There are no other safety devices.
The two waste bins are emptied monthly. After the last time the bins were emptied, an employee of the defendant pushed the bins back into place and applied the brakes on the bins. The brakes were not checked again before the damaging event.
During a storm, the rubbish bins came loose and damaged two employee vehicles
On 5 May 2015, the low pressure system "Zoran" moved across the municipality, for which a storm warning was also issued. The storm caused both waste containers to be moved out of the company premises through the gate. One of the bins damaged two vehicles in the employee car park.
The plaintiff is the insurer of one of the employees whose vehicle was damaged by the rubbish bins. The employee parked his vehicle in the first position in front of the gate of the company premises and went on an assignment outside the company premises. He did not return until 16:00 and then discovered the damage to his vehicle.
The defendant was then claimed for damages
After the action was dismissed by the Wesel Labour Court (ArbG Wesel 5th Chamber, 16 December 2016, Ref.: 5 Ca 1194/16), the plaintiff appealed to the Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court.
It is undisputed by both parties that the two waste containers, which were located in the depot, were set in motion from their parking position by the storm of the first category (value 9 on the Beaufort scale) and damaged various vehicles on their way towards the road, including that of the employee.
The parties are in dispute as to whether the defendant has properly fulfilled its duty to ensure safety with regard to the containers.
Ruling of the Düsseldorf Regional Labour Court
Court ruled that the defendant had acted culpably
In its judgement, the Court of Appeal found that the defendant had culpably breached its duty to ensure road safety. This is because if an employer provides a company car park, it must ensure its road safety. It must prevent imminent dangers from parked vehicles to a reasonable extent. Special circumstances also justify an increased duty of care.
The plaintiff has a claim under §§ 280, 611 BGB, § 86 VVG. If a debtor (here: defendant) breaches an obligation arising from a contractual obligation (here: employment contract), the creditor (here: plaintiff) can demand compensation for the resulting damage. However, this does not apply if the debtor is not responsible for the breach, Section 280 (1) BGB. In the context of Section 280 (1) BGB, the breach of duty for which the debtor is responsible justifies a claim for damages that extends to all direct and indirect disadvantages of the damaging event. In this case, the culpable breach of duty within the meaning of Section 276 BGB is problematic.
The employee is obliged to prevent damage to the legal interests of the company or his employer, including his assets.
Employer has a duty of care for life and limb and the property of the employee
Conversely, the employer has a duty of care to protect employee property that is legitimately brought into the company from loss and damage to a certain extent. For example, the defendant has a duty of care in a car park provided by it.
The vehicle parked on a site belonging to the depot was indisputably damaged by one of the defendant's two waste containers, which were located on the depot. The cause of the damage is that both large waste containers were moved by the storm. In the process, the large waste containers damaged two other vehicles on their way. One of the containers even came to a halt on the road. As a result, it is objectively clear that the two large waste containers parked on the site were set in motion by the storm from their parked position and damaged various vehicles on their way towards the road, including that of employee T.
The rubbish bins were most likely secured incorrectly
In the view of the LAG Düsseldorf, prima facie evidence was sufficient in this case that the waste bins had been inadequately secured. This is because even in the event of a storm, the bins should not pose a danger to third parties. There were also no unforeseeable events such as an unforeseeably strong gust of wind. According to the defendant's submission, such an extraordinary situation could not be assumed, which even properly secured containers could not withstand. It is also not sufficient to refer generally to a storm and to assert without any substance that the container must have been hit by a gust of wind because the roller brakes of the container had been applied by an employee after emptying a good two weeks before the storm (cf. only OLG Hamm of 14 July 2010 - 13 U 145/09, juris; LG Bielefeld of 23 October 2014 - 2 O 44/14, juris; LG Cologne of 14 October 2008 - 11 S 421/07, juris; AG Hamburg-St. Georg of 28 April 2016 - 913 C 322/214, juris).
The defendant had acted culpably with regard to its duty of road safety by not taking any safety measures with regard to the large waste containers located on its property before the announced storm. It was not sufficient to rely on the fact that the employee had properly applied the brakes after the last emptying of the containers. These could have come loose in the two weeks before the storm and therefore not have adequately secured the containers against rolling away.
Due to the storm, additional safety measures had to be taken
The defendant should have taken additional measures to secure the large waste containers due to the predicted storm. The simplest measure would have been to close the gate to the premises. Other measures could have included choosing a different parking space, anchoring or building an enclosure. Simply relying on the fact that DIN EN 840-compliant waste containers with their parking brakes can withstand a first-category storm is not enough.
By failing to take the necessary safety measures, the defendant had also culpably breached the duty of care required in traffic. She had been aware that a storm was imminent. Nevertheless, it had remained inactive with regard to concrete safety measures, so that the accusation of negligence was justified.
This justifies a claim by the plaintiff under §§ 280, 611 BGB, § 86 VVG.
Source: Düsseldorf Regional Labor Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, please feel free to call us at 0221 - 80187670 or send us an email at or send an email to info@mth-partner.de info@mth-partner.de
