The University of Texas at Austin   School of Law

Main menu:

Tort Law — Economic Loss I (cable cases)

Date Citation Note
12.07.1977 BGH NJW 1977, 2208 VI. Civil Senate (VI ZR 136/76) = JZ 1977, 721 = VersR 1977, 1006 Defendant implementing contract with water company damaged electricity cable
Claim for economic loss due to interruption of business
No claim under § 823 I: no invasion of right to established and operating business as no intimate connection with business
No claim under § 823 II as building ordinance not a protective statute
Claimant not within protective ambit of defendant's contract with water company
Water company had not assigned claim for damages to claimant: no Drittschadensliquidation
§ 328 BGB
08.06.1976 BGHZ 66, 388 VI. Civil Senate (VI ZR 50/75) = NJW 1976, 1740 = VersR 1976, 1043 Defendant negligently damaged an electricity cable
Claim by manufacturer affected for economic loss resulting from a loss of production
No claim under § 823 I as no property damage and no direct interference with the right to an established and operating business
No claim under § 823 II as § 18 III LBauO Baden Württemberg and similar local building regulations dealing with protective measures for construction sites are not protective statutes ('Schutzgesetze') in the sense of § 823 II BGB
§ 823 I, II BGB
§ 18 III LBauO Baden-Württemberg
09.12.1958 BGHZ 29, 65 VI. Civil Senate (VI ZR 199/57) Stromkabel -decision = NJW 1959, 479 Defendant culpably damaged an electricity cable
Claim by the owner of a factory affected for economic loss resulting from an interruption in production
No direct interference with established and operating business under § 823 I, as not directed against enterprise as such
No protective duty of care (Verkehrssicherungspflicht)
§ 823 I BGB