Judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Munich

Delivery generally means the acquisition of immediate possession. However, physical possession of the goods by the recipient is not necessary; however, they must be made available to the recipient in such a way that they can take possession of the goods without further hindrance. The burden of proof for delivery rests with the carrier.

If the carrier places the goods to be delivered in front of an unoccupied warehouse without the sender's instructions, this does not allow the recipient to take possession of the goods without further obstacles and therefore does not constitute delivery.

Leaving valuable goods in front of an unoccupied warehouse is particularly negligent and therefore reckless, and therefore constitutes qualified negligence on the part of the carrier within the meaning of Section 435 of the German Commercial Code (HGB). This applies even if such practices have been repeatedly practiced in the past. Theft of the unattended goods was certainly likely.

Conclusion

Leaving valuable goods in front of an unoccupied warehouse without appropriate security measures constitutes serious negligence on the part of the carrier. Even if this practice was common in the past, in this case it constitutes qualified negligence under Section 435 of the German Commercial Code (HGB). Given the proximity to potential theft risks, the carrier is responsible for ensuring safe and proper delivery to avoid damage and legal consequences.

Der Beitrag Zum qualifiziertes Verschulden des Frachtführers wegen Abstellen von wertvoller Ware vor einem unbesetzten Lagerhaus erschien zuerst auf R&U.