duty of care
noun · Verkehrssicherungspflicht
Verkehrssicherungspflicht for the safety duty that does the work of a duty of care in German delict, because there is no general duty of care at all, § 823 Abs. 1 BGB protects only an enumerated list of interests and leaves pure economic loss out. A Verkehrssicherungspflicht arises where you create or control a source of danger, and the reflex Sorgfaltspflicht names the standard of care, not the duty that founds liability.
Which translation, when
Why
A duty of care is the gateway to English negligence, owed to those a defendant can foresee being harmed, and German delict has no such general duty. Liability under § 823 Abs. 1 BGB starts not from a duty but from a Rechtsgutsverletzung, the violation of an enumerated interest, Leben, Körper, Gesundheit, Freiheit, Eigentum or a sonstiges Recht, and pure economic loss is deliberately outside that list. English law restricts recovery for pure economic loss too, but it leaves narrow openings, the assumption of responsibility of Hedley Byrne and its line, whereas § 823 Abs. 1 closes the door, sending any financial-loss claim to contract or § 826 BGB. Where English law would ask whether a duty of care was owed, German law asks whether the defendant broke a Verkehrssicherungspflicht, an affirmative duty to make safe a source of danger one opens or controls, the shopkeeper keeping the floor dry, the builder fencing the site, and its breach supplies the wrongfulness within § 823 Abs. 1. The reflex Sorgfaltspflicht is a false friend here, it names the objective standard of care, § 276 Abs. 2 BGB, that measures fault once a duty exists, not the gateway duty itself. So duty of care is reconstructed, a Verkehrssicherungspflicht for the affirmative case, and the pure-economic-loss claim, shut out of § 823 Abs. 1, must look to contract or § 826 BGB instead.
Typical mistakes
- German delict has no general duty of care, § 823 Abs. 1 BGB requires a Rechtsgutsverletzung from an enumerated list, so a duty-of-care claim for pure economic loss finds nothing there and must look to contract or § 826 BGB.
- Sorgfaltspflicht is the standard of care, § 276 Abs. 2 BGB, not the gateway duty, so rendering duty of care as Sorgfaltspflicht names the wrong element of the claim.
- The affirmative duty is a Verkehrssicherungspflicht, arising from creating or controlling a danger source, so it is not owed to the world at large but tied to the source the defendant controls.
What matters
Personal-injury and premises claims meet a different starting point: German liability needs a Rechtsgutsverletzung under § 823 Abs. 1 BGB and, for an omission, a breached Verkehrssicherungspflicht, not a free-standing duty of care. The claim pleaded as a breach of a duty of care to avoid financial loss has no delictual footing, pure economic loss sitting outside the enumerated interests.
What the machine misses
Duty of care comes back as Sorgfaltspflicht in machine output almost by reflex, and in the law of delict that is the wrong element, Sorgfaltspflicht is the standard of care that grades fault, § 276 Abs. 2 BGB, not the gateway duty that founds an English negligence claim. German liability has no general duty of care, it runs on a Rechtsgutsverletzung under § 823 Abs. 1 BGB and, for omissions, a Verkehrssicherungspflicht, so a translated duty of care to avoid financial loss quietly promises a route to recovery that pure economic loss, outside the enumerated interests, does not have.
Examples
| to owe a duty of care | eine Verkehrssicherungspflicht treffen |
| a breach of the duty of care | die Verletzung der Verkehrssicherungspflicht |
| the standard of care | der Sorgfaltsmaßstab |
| a foreseeable claimant | ein vorhersehbar Geschädigter |
More notes on these sections
negligence Fahrlässigkeit
tort unerlaubte Handlung
breach of contract Pflichtverletzung