Who has to prove what? At the beginning of this year, the district court of nurnberg dealt in a decision with the question of which principles of burden of proof apply when a customer suffers an injury in a store.
The plaintiff visited a furniture store in nurnberg in october 2018 to make purchases, as friedrich weitner, judge at the higher regional court, stated in this regard. She claims that a sign hanging from the ceiling fell down and hit her in the head. This sign had been made of solid plastic material and had hit her with the tip.
As a result she suffered a bleeding head injury. At a site four millimeters by two millimeters, the hair was no longer growing back, so that a hair transplant would be necessary.
Also demanded compensation for pain and suffering
With her complaint the plaintiff demanded first the costs for the hair transplantation in height of 2000 euro as well as a pain money in a rough order of 1000 euro.
The mobelhaus denied that the plaintiff had been hit by an improperly placed sign.
The judge first heard the plaintiff in person and then obtained a picture of the scene of the accident during a site visit. In addition, she questioned witnesses and collected an expert opinion.
The burden of proof
The district court of nurnberg dismissed the lawsuit. The court based its decision on the following distribution of the burden of proof: the person who claims to have suffered an injury due to a defect or condition in a store must first prove this defect. Only then does the shift in the burden of proof recognized by case law apply, in that the company has to prove that it has taken the organizational and monitoring measures necessary to avoid such accidents and that it has also carefully monitored compliance with them.
From the point of view of the district court, the plaintiff was unable to prove that the sign had fallen down without impulse from auben. She had claimed that the sign had simply fallen down, and that she had not touched it beforehand. The judge could not be convinced of this. The court based its decision in particular on the expert’s statements that the injuries could have been caused by a shield, but that it was almost impossible for the shield to have fallen down without an impulse from auben.
The plaintiff has filed an appeal against the decision of the district court with the district court of nurnberg-furth. After the latter had issued a notice that the decision of the district court did not contain any errors of law, the plaintiff withdrew the appeal, so that the judgment of the district court of nurnberg is now legally binding.