An operator cannot avoid liability simply because an external intervention occurred. The key question is what preventive measures were taken by the operator.
What happened
A female driver and her passenger sought compensation from a farmer for damage and personal injury after a bale of hay rolled down a meadow and struck their vehicle. The courts concluded that the bale could not have gotten rolling on its own but was set in motion by an unidentified external influence.
How the Constitutional Court views the matter
The Constitutional Court addressed the interpretation of Section 2924 of the Civil Code, according to which anyone who operates a business or other facility used for gainful activities shall provide compensation for damage arising from such operation, whether caused by the activity itself, by the things used for it, or by the impact of the activity on the surroundings.
The operator is relieved of liability if they prove that they exercised all the care which may reasonably be expected from them to prevent the damage from occurring.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that an operator cannot automatically be relieved of liability merely because an external influence—such as a third party—interfered with their operations in some way. On the contrary, it is necessary to thoroughly assess the specifics of individual operations, including the associated risk that third parties may interfere with them, and that such interference (even if unauthorized) may cause harm to others.
In other words, the mere presence of an external influence is not sufficient—it is always necessary to evaluate the specific operation and the level of prevention.
What it means in practice
If a business creates a risky situation, especially in an environment where other people are regularly present, it is necessary to pay increased attention to prevention.
The court will assess in particular:
- what measures could reasonably have been taken
- whether they were actually implemented.
- In practice, such a prudent preventive approach should typically be adopted by businesses in sectors such as logistics (handling of pallets, containers, etc.) or construction—in short, in operations carried out in environments where contact with external persons cannot be ruled out or effectively limited.
| What to watch out for The operator should also anticipate the possibility of third-party interference in its operations, including unauthorized interference. Anticipating these situations should be part of the entrepreneur’s responsible risk management, e.g., within the framework of corporate compliance. Further information on the Constitutional Court’s ruling, file no. III. ÚS 3531/25, is available here: https://www.usoud.cz/aktualne/odpovednost-provozovatele-za-skodu-vzniklou-provozni-cinnosti |
Author Miroslav Kopeček, Senior Associate, LYNX (Czech Republic)
