Munich, December 12, 2025 – The Munich Local Court (Az. 173 C 24363/24) has ruled that isolated ice patches on business premises do not trigger a clearing and gritting obligation, thus denying a claim for pain and suffering. This decision comes after a truck driver sued for compensation following a fall on an icy patch at a company’s premises.
Truck Driver Falls on Icy Business Premises
On January 16, 2024, a truck driver from the Munich area was delivering goods to a company’s business premises. While opening his vehicle’s tarpaulin, he reportedly slipped on a barely visible ice patch, sustaining a wrist fracture. The driver subsequently demanded at least 3,500 € in pain and suffering compensation from the operator of the premises, along with reimbursement for pre-litigation costs.
After the company denied responsibility for the accident, the driver filed a lawsuit with the Munich Local Court, seeking “appropriate” pain and suffering compensation. The court was tasked with determining whether the company had breached its duty of care and if liability arose from the alleged fall.
No Breach of Duty of Care for Isolated Ice Patches
The Munich Local Court completely dismissed the lawsuit in its judgment issued on February 25, 2025.
In its reasoning, the court referred to the jurisprudence of the Munich Higher Regional Court regarding clearing and gritting obligations on parking lots and similar areas. According to this, different requirements apply to such areas than to sidewalks, as parking and business areas primarily serve vehicle traffic but must also be used by pedestrians.
Under these standards, the party responsible for traffic safety must ensure reasonable and safe use, but not guarantee a completely ice-free surface. They are only required to minimize winter hazards within reasonable limits. Users, moreover, must behave cautiously themselves.
Crucially, gritting obligations only exist in the event of general slipperiness. Isolated local ice patches are not sufficient for this. The plaintiff’s submission, in the court’s opinion, did not indicate widespread slipperiness. Multiple ice patches did not automatically signify a dangerous overall situation that would have obliged the company to undertake comprehensive gritting measures. The fact that the plaintiff actually fell also did not constitute prima facie evidence of a breach of duty.
The company was neither obliged to keep the entire business premises continuously gritted, nor did it have to ensure that suppliers would always find a gritted area when exiting their vehicles or in their immediate vicinity. As the plaintiff could not provide sufficient evidence of a breach of the clearing and gritting obligation, his lawsuit was unsuccessful.
Advice for Winter Safety on Business Premises
Tip: Those using business or parking areas should exercise particular caution in winter and not rely on every single walking area being gritted. Operators, in turn, should document what measures they have taken and regularly check whether general slipperiness is forming to avoid liability risks.
Source: https://www.juraforum.de/news/ag-muenchen-keine-raeum-und-streupflicht-bei-vereinzelten-glaettestellen_271929
