References without law book default to BGB. Parts of this page were generated by AI.

AI Generated Exam Case

Case - Botched Office Renovation

Facts

TechStart GmbH (T) is a technology startup based in Munich. In October, T hires RenoBau GmbH (R), a professional renovation company, to renovate the electrical wiring in its Munich office. The contract specifies that all electrical work must be completed by the 1st of November, as T has scheduled a major product launch event for the 3rd of November. R is expressly informed of the event and its significance.

R sends its employee, Peter (P), a certified electrician with 10 years of tenure at the company, to carry out the electrical installation. On the 25th of October, Peter negligently connects the wiring incorrectly, causing a short circuit that starts a fire in the office. The fire destroys T’s newly purchased server rack, worth EUR 8,000, and burns valuable marketing materials that T had prepared for the launch event, worth EUR 3,000. The fire also injures Claudia (C), a visiting client of T who was at the office for a business meeting. Claudia suffers burns on her arm, requiring medical treatment costing EUR 2,000. She also suffers significant pain.

As a result of the fire damage, T is forced to cancel the product launch event. T claims it would have closed deals worth EUR 15,000 in profit at the event.

On the day of the incident, the 12-year-old son of T’s managing director, Tim, was visiting the office after school. Left unsupervised near the construction area, Tim found Peter’s tools and threw a heavy wrench through the front window of the neighboring café, “Café Müller”, causing EUR 1,500 in damage to the window and interior furnishings.

It later emerges that Claudia had walked past a warning sign that Peter had placed near the work area reading “Danger – Electrical Work – Keep Out.” Claudia needed to pass through the area to reach the restroom and chose to ignore the sign. R argues that Peter was a highly trained and certified electrician whom R had properly selected and supervised throughout his 10-year tenure.

Questions:
a. Can T demand compensation from R for the server rack (EUR 8,000), marketing materials (EUR 3,000), and lost profits (EUR 15,000)? (10 P)
b. Can Claudia demand compensation from R for her medical costs (EUR 2,000) and pain and suffering? Does her ignoring the warning sign affect her claim? (8 P)
c. Who is liable for Tim’s damage to Café Müller (EUR 1,500)? (7 P)

Solution

Solution Summary

Part a: T’s Contractual Claims Against R

• Issue: Can T claim EUR 8,000 + EUR 3,000 + EUR 15,000 from R under §§ 280 I, 241 II BGB?
• Rule:
  • Contract type: Contract for work (Werkvertrag, § 631 BGB) — R owes a specific, defect-free result (properly installed wiring), not mere effort.
  • Breach of duty: Delivering defective work breaches R’s contractual obligation (§ 280 I BGB). Protective duties arise from the contractual relationship (§ 241 II BGB).
  • Contractual vicarious liability (§ 278 S. 1 BGB): A debtor is liable for the fault of persons it engages to fulfill its obligations (Erfüllungsgehilfe) as if it were the debtor’s own fault. There is NO exculpation defense.
  • Damages: Restoration under § 249 I BGB. Lost profits under § 252 BGB if expected in the ordinary course of events.
• Application:
  • Contract: T and R concluded a Werkvertrag (§ 631 BGB). R owed properly installed electrical wiring.
  • Breach: Peter’s negligent installation caused a fire — defective performance and a breach of protective duties (§ 241 II BGB).
  • Vicarious liability: Peter is R’s Erfüllungsgehilfe (§ 278 S. 1 BGB). R is liable for Peter’s fault without any possibility of exculpation. R’s argument regarding proper selection and supervision is irrelevant under § 278.
  • Server rack (EUR 8,000): Direct consequential damage. Compensable under § 249 I BGB. ✓
  • Marketing materials (EUR 3,000): Direct consequential damage. Compensable under § 249 I BGB. ✓
  • Lost profits (EUR 15,000): Under § 252 BGB, compensable if expected in the ordinary course of events. R knew about the launch event. However, T bears the burden of proving that the specific deals were probable, not merely speculative.
• Conclusion: T can claim EUR 8,000 and EUR 3,000. The EUR 15,000 lost profits claim depends on T’s ability to substantiate the expected deals.

Part b: Claudia’s Tort Claim Against R

• Issue: Can Claudia claim from R under § 823 I BGB via § 831 I BGB, and does contributory negligence (§ 254 BGB) reduce her claim?
• Rule:
  • § 823 I BGB: Requires harm to a protected right, action, causation, unlawfulness, fault, and damage.
  • § 831 I 1 BGB: A principal is liable for torts committed by persons appointed to perform a task. However, under § 831 I 2 BGB, the principal can exculpate itself by proving proper selection and supervision.
  • § 253 II BGB: Non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) are compensable for bodily injury.
  • § 254 I BGB: Contributory negligence reduces compensation proportionally.
• Application:
  • § 823 I BGB against Peter: Claudia’s body/health was injured (protected right). Peter negligently wired the electrics (action, fault under § 276 II BGB). The fire caused Claudia’s burns (causation). The injury is presumed unlawful. Peter is personally liable. ✓
  • § 831 I BGB against R: Peter was appointed by R to perform the task. However, R argues proper selection/supervision over 10 years (§ 831 I 2 BGB). If R proves this → exculpation is possible. Key distinction: Unlike § 278 BGB (no exculpation), § 831 BGB allows exculpation.
  • Contributory negligence: Claudia ignored a warning sign (§ 254 I BGB). However, she had a legitimate reason (reaching the restroom). Courts would likely reduce compensation partially (e.g., 20–30%), not eliminate it.
  • Damages: EUR 2,000 medical costs (§ 249 BGB) + pain and suffering (§ 253 II BGB), reduced by contributory negligence.
• Conclusion: Claudia can claim from Peter (§ 823 I BGB). Her claim against R (§ 831 I BGB) depends on whether R can prove proper selection/supervision. Compensation is reduced due to contributory negligence (§ 254 BGB).

Part c: Liability for Tim’s Damage to Café Müller

• Issue: Who is liable for EUR 1,500 in damage to Café Müller?
• Rule:
  • § 828 II BGB: Children between 7 and 18 are liable only if they possessed the insight required to recognize their responsibility.
  • § 832 I BGB: A person obligated by law to supervise a minor is liable for the minor’s damage, unless the supervisor proves they fulfilled their duty of supervision (§ 832 I 2 BGB).
  • § 823 I BGB: General tort liability for property damage.
• Application:
  • Tim (§ 828 II BGB): Tim is 12 years old. A 12-year-old typically understands that throwing a heavy wrench through a window causes damage → Tim likely possessed the required insight. Tim is personally liable under § 823 I BGB (property damage).
  • Managing Director (§ 832 I BGB): Tim’s parent (the MD) is obligated by law to supervise Tim. The MD left Tim unsupervised near a construction area with accessible tools — a clear failure to exercise appropriate supervision. The MD cannot prove fulfillment of the supervisory duty (§ 832 I 2 BGB) → the MD is personally liable.
  • T (TechStart GmbH): Not Tim’s legal guardian. § 832 I BGB attaches to the parent personally, not to the company.
  • R / Peter: While Peter left tools unsecured, Tim’s deliberate act and the parent’s failure to supervise are the primary causes.
• Conclusion: Café Müller can claim from Tim (if § 828 II BGB is satisfied) and from the MD personally under § 832 I BGB. T and R are not primarily liable.

Advanced Legal Analysis

Topic 1: § 278 BGB vs. § 831 BGB — The Dual System of Vicarious Liability

• This case perfectly illustrates the crucial practical difference between the two regimes of vicarious liability in German law. In contractual relationships (T vs. R), the debtor is strictly liable for the fault of its vicarious agents (Erfüllungsgehilfe) under § 278 S. 1 BGB — no exculpation is possible. The principal’s own care in selecting and supervising the agent is entirely irrelevant. By contrast, in tort claims by third parties (Claudia vs. R), the principal can exculpate itself under § 831 I 2 BGB by proving that it exercised proper care in selecting and supervising the appointee. This creates a significant asymmetry: contracting parties enjoy substantially stronger protection than injured third parties. In practice, injured third parties often attempt to establish a contractual nexus — for example, via a contract with protective effect for third parties (Vertrag mit Schutzwirkung zugunsten Dritter) — to benefit from § 278 BGB’s strict, non-exculpable liability regime rather than relying on the weaker § 831 BGB framework.

Topic 2: § 823 II BGB — Protective Statute Tort

• Beyond the general tort provision of § 823 I BGB, Claudia could also pursue a claim under § 823 II BGB if Peter violated a protective statute (Schutzgesetz). German electrical installation regulations — in particular, the DIN VDE standards governing electrical safety — are statutory rules specifically designed to protect persons from electrical hazards. If Peter violated these technical standards by connecting the wiring incorrectly, § 823 II BGB provides an independent basis for Claudia’s claim. The practical advantage of this route is twofold: first, the violation of a specific safety regulation strengthens the negligence argument considerably; second, it may make it harder for R to rely on the exculpation defense under § 831 I 2 BGB, because the violation of binding safety norms suggests a systemic failure in supervision rather than an isolated lapse by an otherwise competent employee.

Write-Up

Question a: T’s Contractual Claims Against R

Issue: Can T demand compensation from R for the destroyed server rack (EUR 8,000), the burned marketing materials (EUR 3,000), and the lost profits from the cancelled launch event (EUR 15,000) under §§ 280 I, 241 II BGB?

Rule: A claim for damages under § 280 I BGB requires a valid obligation, a breach of duty arising from that obligation, fault on the part of the debtor, and resulting damage. Under § 241 II BGB, an obligation also gives rise to ancillary protective duties, obligating each party to have regard for the rights and interests of the other party. The contract between T and R is a contract for work (Werkvertrag) under § 631 BGB, meaning R owes a specific, defect-free result — properly installed electrical wiring — rather than mere effort. Under § 278 S. 1 BGB, a debtor is liable for the fault of persons whom it engages to fulfill its obligations (Erfüllungsgehilfe) to the same extent as for its own fault. Crucially, unlike the tort-law vicarious liability provision of § 831 BGB, § 278 BGB does not permit the debtor to exculpate itself by proving that it exercised proper care in the selection and supervision of its agent. Damages are calculated under § 249 I BGB, which requires placing the creditor in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Lost profits are compensable under § 252 BGB if they were to be expected in the ordinary course of events or could be expected according to the special circumstances of the case.

Application:
First, a valid contractual obligation exists. T and R concluded a Werkvertrag under § 631 BGB for the renovation of the electrical wiring in T’s Munich office.

Second, R breached its contractual duties. Peter, R’s employee, negligently connected the wiring incorrectly, causing a short circuit and a fire. This constitutes both a defective performance of the main contractual obligation and a violation of the ancillary protective duties owed under § 241 II BGB, which require R to safeguard T’s existing property interests during the performance of the contract.

Third, fault must be established. Peter is an Erfüllungsgehilfe of R within the meaning of § 278 S. 1 BGB — he is a person whom R engaged to fulfill its contractual obligation to install the electrical wiring. Under this provision, R is liable for Peter’s negligence as if it were R’s own fault. R’s argument that Peter was a highly trained and certified electrician who had been properly selected and supervised throughout his 10-year tenure is entirely irrelevant in this context. The contractual vicarious liability regime of § 278 BGB is strict and does not permit exculpation, in contrast to the tort-law provision of § 831 I 2 BGB. Fault on R’s part is therefore established.

Fourth, the resulting damages must be assessed. The destroyed server rack (EUR 8,000) and the burned marketing materials (EUR 3,000) constitute direct consequential damages caused by Peter’s breach. Under § 249 I BGB, T must be placed in the position it would have been in had the fire not occurred. But for the fire, these items would not have been destroyed. Both items are therefore fully compensable.

As for the lost profits (EUR 15,000), § 252 BGB provides that lost profits are compensable if they were to be expected in the ordinary course of events or could be expected according to special circumstances. The product launch event was concretely planned and R was expressly informed of its significance. This satisfies the requirement of foreseeability. However, T bears the burden of proving that the specific deals worth EUR 15,000 in profit were probable and not merely speculative. If T can substantiate the expected revenue — for example, through existing client commitments, pre-registrations, or historical data from similar events — the lost profits are compensable. If the claimed amount is purely hypothetical, a court may deny or reduce the claim.

Conclusion: T can demand compensation from R for the server rack (EUR 8,000) and the marketing materials (EUR 3,000) under §§ 280 I, 241 II, 278 S. 1 BGB. The claim for lost profits (EUR 15,000) is compensable in principle under § 252 BGB, but depends on T’s ability to substantiate the expected deals with sufficient evidence.

---

Question b: Claudia’s Tort Claim Against R

Issue: Can Claudia demand compensation from R for her medical costs (EUR 2,000) and pain and suffering under §§ 823 I, 831 I BGB, and does her decision to ignore the warning sign affect the extent of her claim under § 254 BGB?

Rule: Claudia is not a party to the contract between T and R. She therefore cannot rely on contractual claims under § 280 BGB against R. Her claim must be grounded in tort law. Under § 823 I BGB, a person who intentionally or negligently injures the life, body, health, freedom, property, or any other right of another person is liable to compensate the resulting damage. The requirements are: (1) harm to a protected right, (2) action or omission, (3) causation, (4) unlawfulness, (5) fault, and (6) damage. Where the direct tortfeasor is an employee, the injured party may also seek to hold the employer liable under § 831 I 1 BGB, which provides that a person who appoints another to perform a task is liable for damage the appointee unlawfully causes to a third party. However, under § 831 I 2 BGB, the principal can avoid liability if it proves that it exercised proper care in the selection and supervision of the appointee, or that the damage would have occurred regardless. Non-pecuniary damages, including pain and suffering, are compensable for bodily injury under § 253 II BGB. Under § 254 I BGB, if the injured party’s own negligence contributed to the damage, the compensation is reduced proportionally based on the respective degrees of fault and causation.

Application:
The analysis begins with Peter’s personal liability under § 823 I BGB. Claudia’s body and health were injured — she suffered burns on her arm — which constitutes harm to a protected right within the meaning of § 823 I BGB. Peter’s negligent wiring of the electrics constitutes the relevant action. The fire caused by the short circuit directly resulted in Claudia’s burns, establishing causation. The injury to Claudia’s bodily integrity is presumed unlawful, and no grounds for justification (such as self-defense under § 227 BGB) are apparent. As for fault, Peter acted negligently within the meaning of § 276 II BGB: a certified electrician with 10 years of experience who connects wiring incorrectly falls below the standard of care required of a professional in his field. All requirements of § 823 I BGB are therefore met. Peter is personally liable.

Turning to R’s liability under § 831 I BGB, Peter was appointed by R to perform the electrical installation, making him an appointee within the meaning of § 831 I 1 BGB. R is therefore, in principle, liable for the damage Peter unlawfully caused. However, R raises the exculpation defense under § 831 I 2 BGB, arguing that Peter was a highly trained and certified electrician who had been properly selected and supervised over a 10-year tenure. If R can prove these facts, it may successfully exculpate itself and avoid liability under § 831 I BGB. This is a critical distinction from the contractual context in Question a: whereas § 278 S. 1 BGB imposes strict, non-exculpable liability on the debtor for the fault of its vicarious agents, § 831 I 2 BGB expressly allows the principal to escape tort liability through the exculpation defense. If R successfully exculpates, Claudia retains her claim against Peter directly under § 823 I BGB.

Regarding damages, Claudia’s medical costs of EUR 2,000 are compensable under § 249 I BGB as the cost of restoring her to her pre-injury condition. Additionally, § 253 II BGB provides that non-pecuniary damages, specifically pain and suffering (Schmerzensgeld), are compensable in cases of bodily injury. The amount of pain and suffering compensation is at the court’s discretion, considering the severity and duration of the injuries.

Finally, Claudia’s contributory negligence must be assessed. Claudia ignored a clearly posted warning sign reading “Danger – Electrical Work – Keep Out” and entered the hazardous area. Under § 254 I BGB, this constitutes a failure to exercise due care for her own safety, which reduces her compensation proportionally. However, several mitigating factors must be considered: Claudia had a legitimate and practical reason to pass through the area (she needed to reach the restroom), and as a layperson she may not have fully appreciated the specific danger posed by ongoing electrical work. A court would therefore likely assign partial responsibility to Claudia, reducing her compensation by a moderate amount (approximately 20–30%), but would not eliminate the claim entirely.

Conclusion: Claudia can claim compensation from Peter under § 823 I BGB for her medical costs (EUR 2,000) and pain and suffering (§ 253 II BGB). Her claim against R under § 831 I BGB depends on whether R can prove that it exercised proper care in the selection and supervision of Peter (§ 831 I 2 BGB). In either case, Claudia’s compensation is subject to proportional reduction due to her contributory negligence under § 254 I BGB.

---

Question c: Liability for Tim’s Damage to Café Müller

Issue: Who is liable for the EUR 1,500 in damage that Tim caused to Café Müller by throwing a wrench through its front window?

Rule: Under § 828 I BGB, children under the age of 7 are not liable for damage they cause. Under § 828 II BGB, children between 7 and 18 are liable only if they possessed the insight required to recognize their responsibility at the time of the act. If the minor is liable, the general tort provision of § 823 I BGB applies. Separately, under § 832 I 1 BGB, a person who is obligated by law to supervise a minor is liable for any damage the minor unlawfully causes to a third party. However, under § 832 I 2 BGB, the supervisor can avoid liability if they prove that they fulfilled their duty of supervision, or that the damage would have occurred regardless of proper supervision.

Application:
First, Tim’s own liability must be assessed. Tim is 12 years old and therefore falls within the age range of § 828 II BGB (between 7 and 18). The decisive question is whether Tim possessed the insight required to recognize his responsibility. A 12-year-old child is generally expected to understand that deliberately throwing a heavy wrench at a glass window will cause damage. This act does not involve a complex or unforeseeable chain of causation — the connection between throwing a heavy object at glass and the resulting breakage is immediate and obvious. It is therefore highly likely that Tim possessed the required insight. If so, Tim is personally liable under § 823 I BGB for the property damage to Café Müller’s window and interior furnishings (EUR 1,500). In practice, however, a 12-year-old’s personal assets are typically negligible, making enforcement against Tim difficult.

Second, the parental liability of T’s managing director (MD) must be examined. The MD is Tim’s parent and is therefore obligated by law to supervise Tim under § 832 I 1 BGB. The facts indicate that the MD left Tim unsupervised near an active construction area where tools were freely accessible. A construction site with heavy tools represents an obvious source of danger for a child. Leaving a 12-year-old without supervision in such an environment constitutes a clear failure to exercise the required degree of supervisory care. The MD cannot credibly argue under § 832 I 2 BGB that the duty of supervision was fulfilled. Accordingly, the MD is personally liable to Café Müller under § 832 I BGB. It is important to note that this liability attaches to the MD personally as Tim’s parent, not to T (TechStart GmbH) as a legal entity, because the GmbH is not Tim’s legal guardian.

Third, the potential liability of R or Peter must be briefly considered. Peter left his tools unsecured and accessible at the construction site, which arguably constitutes a breach of the duty to secure sources of danger (Verkehrssicherungspflicht). However, Tim’s act was deliberate — he intentionally threw the wrench — and Peter had no duty to supervise Tim. The primary cause of the damage is Tim’s deliberate act combined with the parent’s failure to supervise, not the mere availability of tools. A court would therefore likely attribute primary responsibility to Tim and the MD rather than to R or Peter.

Conclusion: Café Müller can claim compensation from Tim personally under § 823 I BGB (provided § 828 II BGB is satisfied) and from the managing director personally under § 832 I BGB for failure to fulfill the statutory duty of supervision. T (TechStart GmbH) and R (RenoBau GmbH) are not primarily liable for Tim’s damage.