The complainants sought damages against the farmer, claiming that the hay bales were not stored safely enough on the sloping ground. While the district court held the operator liable for operational damages, the Court of Appeal excluded liability on the basis of interference by an unknown third party. The Constitutional Court found this procedure incorrect because the Regional Court mechanically relied on the case-law on the previous legislation and did not assess the specifics of the current Section 2924 of the Civil Code, which allows liability even in the event of the accumulation of multiple causes.
The case is remanded to the Regional Court, which will have to reassess whether the operator took all the measures that could reasonably be required in the circumstances to prevent the damage. In doing so, the Constitutional Court does not prejudge the outcome, but merely states that liability cannot be automatically rejected on the sole basis of the existence of an additional contribution to the damage.