Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:342
Date: 2026-04-23
Language of the case: German

Anonymised version 
Translation C-887/24 – 1 
Case C-887/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
20 December 2024 
Referring court: 
Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
9 December 2024 
Applicant and appellant: 
YH 
Defendant and respondent: 
Widl GmbH 
  
In the case of 
YH, […] Thyrnau 
- Applicant and appellant - 
[…] 
v 
Widl GmbH, […] Hengersberg 
- Defendant and respondent - 
[…] 
concerning compensation and declaration 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 12. 2024 – CASE C-887/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
the Oberlandesgericht München [Higher Regional Court, Munich] […] made on 
9 December 2024, further to the hearing on 14 October 2024, the following 
Order 
I. Proceedings shall be stayed. 
II. The following questions on the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 
98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on 
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery 
(OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1), in conjunction with Annex I thereto, shall be referred 
to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Must Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction with 
Annex I thereto, and in particular points 1.1.2., 1.2.1., 1.2.2., 1.2.4., 1.2.6., 
1.2.7. and 2.3.(c) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the emergency stop 
device on a circular saw complies with the safety requirements laid down 
therein if, after an emergency stop command has been triggered, re-actuating 
the emergency stop device – consciously or unconsciously – repeatedly or 
continuously, for at least 4 to 5 seconds, interrupts the braking action, with 
the result that the saw blade does not come to a stop, but runs down silently 
for approximately 11 minutes? 
2. 
(a) Must Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction 
with point 1.2.4 of Annex I thereto, be interpreted as meaning that 
unconscious or inadvertent (renewed) triggering of the emergency stop 
command during the braking period also constitutes an ‘operation’ 
within the meaning of that provision? 
(b) If 2(a) is to be answered in the affirmative, does such unconscious or 
inadvertent actuation constitute an ‘appropriate operation’ for 
disengaging the device within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 
98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction with point 1.2.4. of Annex I 
thereto? 
3. 
(a) Must Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction 
with point 1.2.4 of Annex I thereto, be interpreted as meaning that only 
conscious and intentional (renewed) actuation of the emergency stop 
device constitutes an ‘operation’ within the meaning of that provision? 
(b) If 3(a) is to be answered in the affirmative, does such conscious and 
intentional actuation constitute an ‘appropriate operation’ for 
disengaging the device within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 
WIDL 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction with point 1.2.4 of Annex I 
thereto? 
Grounds: 
A. 
1. In 2009, the applicant purchased a firewood saw (rocker saw) […] [details 
of the saw] produced by the defendant from the company Blössl in 
Obernzell and used it regularly. The saw can be switched from table mode to 
rocker mode. It has a green on-button and a red off-button. Both are located 
under a flap on which there is also a red emergency stop button. When one 
of the two red buttons is actuated, the electronic brake is activated and the 
saw blade comes to a stop after approximately 10 seconds. 
2. On the basis of the evidence taken, the following facts were also established: 
The applicant had, at around 17.30 on 14 December 2016, an accident with 
that saw, whereby he injured his left index finger. After finishing his work 
cutting wood into firewood at the wood storage area in his garden […] 
[precise address of the garden], he wanted to convert the saw from rocker 
mode to table mode and switched off the motor using the off-button. When 
loading the cut logs into the wheelbarrow, he unintentionally hit the off-
button again, either once for at least 4 to 5 seconds or several times in 
succession for a total of at least 4 to 5 seconds. That switched off the motor 
and deactivated the motor brake with the result that the saw blade ran down 
silently for approximately 11 minutes. The applicant folded the saw blade 
guard down, but did not see that the saw blade was still running. The 
applicant’s left index finger was caught by the silently running saw blade. A 
piece of bone measuring approximately 1 cm was ripped from the finger by 
the blow. 
3. The Chamber is satisfied those facts are established on the basis of the 
statements made by the applicant when heard in person on 15 July 2024 and 
the statements made by the witnesses […] [names of witnesses] when 
interviewed on 14 October 2024, as well as the information provided by the 
expert […] [name of expert] in his written reports of 21 December 2021 and 
24 November 2022 and in his oral statements at the hearings of the 
Landgericht Deggendorf (Regional Court, Deggendorf) on 30 August 2022 
and of the Chamber on 14 October 2024. The Chamber has no doubt as to 
the accuracy of the technical and factual accounts given by the expert. After 
conducting an on-site inspection with careful photographic recording – 
including a test run of the circular saw with an identically constructed 
switch – the expert demonstrated in a logical and comprehensible manner 
that the circular saw at issue stops within 8 to 9 seconds after the 
(emergency) stop button is actuated, that an actual effective braking time of 
13 seconds is set and that if the (emergency) stop button is re-actuated, 
either for at least 4 to 5 seconds at a time or several times for a total of at 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 12. 2024 – CASE C-887/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
least 4 to 5 seconds, the preset braking time of 13 seconds is used up and the 
saw blade is not brought to a stop, but continues to run a long time 
(approximately 11 minutes). Furthermore, the expert established on the basis 
of research that there are various types of starters which bring the respective 
motor to a stop in less than 10 seconds, regardless of whether and for how 
long the emergency stop button is pressed (again), the switches concerned 
being of higher quality than the one actually installed in the present case. 
[…] [The referring court’s comments on the assessment of evidence in 
relation to sequence of events leading to the accident] 
4. Furthermore, following the taking of evidence the Chamber is satisfied that 
the applicant is guilty of considerable contributory negligence. […] [detailed 
comments on the reasons for the applicant’s contributory negligence] 
Against that background, the Chamber concludes that the applicant was 80% 
at fault, which must be taken into account when determining the 
compensation to be paid to the applicant by the defendant. In the event of an 
infringement of Directive 98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, the defendant is 
therefore liable to the applicant at a ratio of 20%. 
5. The applicant asserts claims against the defendant on the basis of product 
liability. He claims payment of damages and loss of earnings from the 
defendant, as well as payment of out-of-court legal fees, and seeks a 
declaration that the defendant is liable for compensation. The Landgericht 
dismissed the action. The applicant pursues his claims further in the appeal 
against that decision, which the defendant contents should be dismissed. 
B. 
6. The success of the appeal turns on the interpretation of the safety 
requirements laid down in Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the 
laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1). The 
proceedings must therefore be stayed and a preliminary ruling requested 
from the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the first 
and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU before a decision is made. That is 
because, if the machine at issue does not comply with the safety 
requirements laid down in that directive, the applicant may assert claims 
against the defendant under the rules derived from case-law on tortious 
product liability under Paragraph 823 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 
(German Civil Code; ‘the BGB’) in the version published on 2 January 2002 
(BGBl. I p. 42, corrigendum, p. 2909, 2003 p. 738), as most recently 
amended the Law of 22 October 2024 (BGBl. I, p. 320) with effect from 
26 October 2024. 
7. Claims under the German Gesetz über die Haftung für fehlerhafte Produkte 
(Law on liability for defective products) of 15 December 1989) (BGBl. I, 
p. 2198), based on Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the 
WIDL 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the 
Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, 
p. 29), as most recently amended by the Law of 17 July 2017 (BGBl. I, 
p. 2421), with effect from 26 October 2024 (Law on liability for products; 
ProdHaftG), are to be extinguished under the first sentence of 
Paragraph 13(1) of the ProdHaftG […] [stated] However, under 
Paragraph 15(2) of ProdHaftG, the provision made under subparagraph 1 is 
to be without prejudice to liability on the basis of other provisions. 
8. Since the applicant purchased the (defective) product from a retailer, 
contractual claims against the producer, the defendant, are not possible on 
account of the lack of a contractual relationship with the latter 
(MüKoBGB/Wagner, 9th ed. 2024, Paragraph 15 of the ProdHaftG, 
paragraph 2). 
9. In the present case, however, liability under the rules derived from case-law 
on tortious product liability under Paragraph 823 of the BGB is possible 
(MüKoBGB/Wagner, 9th ed. 2024, Paragraph 15 of the ProdHaftG, 
paragraph 4; Paragraph 823 of the BGB, paragraph 512). That is largely 
similar to liability under the ProdHaftG (see Grüneberg/Sprau, BGB, 83rd 
ed. 2024, Paragraph 823, paragraphs 169 to 189). Under Paragraph 15(2) of 
the ProdHaftG, the provision made under subparagraph 1 thereof is to be 
without prejudice to the fault-based product liability under the rules derived 
from case-law, which involve a limitation period of ten years after the 
product has been placed on the market, even if strict liability under 
ProdHaftG is excluded. […] [comments on the historical development of 
product liability under the rules derived from case-law and on its continued 
existence following the adoption of the ProdHaftG]. Under Paragraph 823(1) 
of the BGB, any person who, with intent or through negligence, unlawfully 
injures the life, body, health, freedom, property or other right of another 
person is to be obliged to compensate that other person for the resulting 
damage. The act establishing liability is the placing of a defective product on 
the market, the concept of defect overlapping with the concept of defect in 
Paragraph 3 of the ProdHaftG (see, in that respect, Grüneberg/Sprau, loc. 
cit., paragraph 171). Furthermore, there must be a causal link between the 
product defect and the damage. The required unlawfulness is established by 
the infringement of the producer’s obligation to ensure safety (ibid.). The 
injured party bears the burden of proof for the existence of a defect in the 
product, for the damage and for the causality of the defect in relation to the 
damage (loc. cit., paragraph 188). If a product defect has caused the damage, 
the producer must prove that it has fulfilled its obligations and is therefore 
not at fault for the defect; the burden of proof is thus reversed (loc. cit., 
paragraph 189). 
10. Under Paragraph 3(1) of the ProdHaftG, a product has a defect when it does 
not provide the safety which may reasonably be expected, taking all 
circumstances into account, including its presentation and the use to which it 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 12. 2024 – CASE C-887/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
could reasonably be expected to be put. Under Paragraph 3(2) of the 
ProdHaftG, a product does not have a defect for the sole reason that a better 
product is subsequently put into circulation. In order for a product to be free 
of defects for the purposes of product liability, it must, in terms of design, 
manufacture, and, where applicable, accompanying instructions, be made in 
such a way that it does not impair the physical integrity of the user or a third 
party and does not otherwise damage his or her private property 
(Grüneberg/Sprau, BGB, 83rd ed. 2024, Paragraph 3 of the ProdHaftG, 
paragraph 2). The test in that regard is justified safety expectations (ibid.). 
The product must provide the safety which prevailing opinion in the relevant 
area deems necessary; it must be possible to use the product according to the 
instructions for use and installation, where it is used as intended or misused 
in a foreseeable manner, without significant risk to the life and limb of the 
user or uninvolved third parties (loc. cit., paragraph 3). Technical standards 
and statutory safety regulations form the minimum standard of safety that 
the general public can reasonably expect (loc. cit., paragraph 4). 
11. As regards the existence or otherwise of a product defect, it is thus relevant 
in the present case that the circular saw at issue was placed on the market on 
15 April 2009 and must therefore comply with the requirements laid down in 
Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States 
relating to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1), which was applicable until 
28 December 2009. It was not until 29 December 2009 that Directive 
2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 
on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 24) 
came into force in its new version (see Article 25(1) and the second 
paragraph of Article 26(1) thereof). 
12. The Chamber concludes that the circular saw at issue is affected by a design 
defect such that it does not comply with the safety requirements laid down in 
Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction with 
Annex I thereto, as it is possible, after activating the emergency stop, to 
interrupt the braking action by – consciously or unconsciously – either 
repeatedly or continuously re-actuating the emergency stop control, for at 
least 4 to 5 seconds, with the result that the saw blade does not come to a 
stop but runs down silently for approximately 11 minutes. Once the 
emergency stop has been triggered, the user cannot therefore rely on the fact 
that the saw blade will in any event be slowed down to a stop. In the view of 
the Chamber, repeated actuation or re-actuation of the emergency stop 
button does not constitute an unforeseeable error. Precisely in an emergency 
situation, it cannot be ruled out that a user might panic and actuate the 
emergency stop button several times in succession or hold it down for a 
longer period of time. In the view of the Chamber, it must therefore also be 
ensured in such a case that the saw comes to a stop in less than 10 seconds. 
WIDL 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
13. However, in the view of the Chamber there are doubts as to whether 
Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC of 22 June 1998, in conjunction with 
Annex I thereto, should actually be interpreted thus. Under Article 3, 
machinery and safety components covered by that directive are to satisfy the 
essential health and safety requirements set out in Annex I. 
14. In Annex I, point 1.1.2(a) provides that any risk of accident throughout the 
foreseeable lifetime of the machinery must be eliminated, even where risks 
of accident arise from foreseeable abnormal situations. Under point 1.1.2(c), 
when designing and constructing machinery, and when drafting the 
instructions, the manufacturer must envisage not only the normal use of the 
machinery but also uses which could reasonably be expected. Point 1.2.1. 
provides that control systems must be designed and constructed so that they 
are safe and reliable, in a way that will prevent a dangerous situation arising. 
Under point 1.2.2., control devices must be designed so that the movement 
of the control is consistent with its effect. Under point 1.2.6., the 
interruption, re-establishment after an interruption or fluctuation in whatever 
manner of the power supply to the machinery must not lead to a dangerous 
situation. In particular, the machinery must not be prevented from stopping 
if the command has already been given. Under point 1.2.7., a fault in the 
control circuit logic, or failure of or damage to the control circuit must not 
lead to dangerous situations. In particular, the machinery must not be 
prevented from stopping if the command has already been given. Under 
point 2.3.(c), machinery for working wood and analogous materials must be 
equipped with an automatic brake that stops the tool in a sufficiently short 
time if there is a risk of contact with the tool whilst it runs down. In the view 
of the Chamber, those rules, read together, indicate that a circular saw such 
as that at issue does not comply with the safety requirements laid down in 
the directive with regard to the functioning of the brake or the operation 
thereof. 
15. Point 1.2.4. of Annex I, on the other hand, provides as follows: ‘Once active 
operation of the emergency stop control has ceased following a stop 
command, that command must be sustained by engagement of the 
emergency stop device until that engagement is specifically overridden; it 
must not be possible to engage the device without triggering a stop 
command; it must be possible to disengage the device only by an appropriate 
operation, and disengaging the device must not restart the machinery but 
only permit restarting.’ The wording ‘Once active operation of the 
emergency stop control has ceased following a stop command, that 
command must be sustained by engagement of the emergency stop device 
until that engagement is specifically overridden’ may have to be interpreted 
as meaning that the braking command does not have to be sustained if the 
emergency stop device is re-actuated, that is to say the machinery complies 
with the safety requirements laid down in the directive in that regard. Even 
on such an interpretation, however, the further question arises as to whether 
in this case only a conscious actuation or also an unconscious actuation 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 12. 2024 – CASE C-887/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
constitutes operation within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 98/37/EC 
of 22 June 1998, in conjunction with Annex I thereto, and whether such 
conscious or unconscious actuation also constitutes an ‘appropriate 
operation [for disengagement]’ of the device within the meaning of that 
provision. 
16. The questions referred are relevant to the decision. If Directive 98/37/EC of 
22 June 1998 must be interpreted as meaning that the emergency stop 
control of a circular saw, which functions as it does in the case at issue, 
complies with the safety requirements laid down therein, it could not be 
concluded that there was a product defect in the dispute in the main 
proceedings. Otherwise, it would have to be concluded that there was a 
product defect in the form of a design defect. The resulting damage would 
also be due to that product defect as the applicant would not have been 
injured by the circular saw if it had brought the saw blade to a stop in less 
than 10 seconds after the red button was actuated, regardless of whether the 
button was re-actuated. The required unlawfulness would obtain on account 
of the producer’s duty to ensure safety. The fault of the defendant would be 
presumed (reversal of the burden of proof). Any claims under the rules 
derived from case-law on tortious product liability under Paragraph 823(1) 
of the BGB would furthermore not be time-barred. […] [more detailed 
comments on the fact that there is no time-bar under the relevant provisions 
of German law] 
C. 
Wording of the national provisions: 
1. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB), in the version published on 2 January 2002 
(BGBl. I p. 42, corrigendum p. 2909, 2003 p. 738), as most recently 
amended the Law of 22 October 2024 (BGBl. I p. 320) with effect from 
26 October 2024 
[…] 
[…] [detailed reproduction of Paragraphs 195, 199 and 204 of the BGB relating to 
the limitation period, the wording of which is irrelevant to the questions referred] 
Paragraph 823 Obligation to provide compensation for damage 
(1) Any person who, with intent or through negligence, unlawfully injures the 
life, body, health, freedom, property or other right of another person shall be 
obliged to compensate that other person for the resulting damage. 
(2) The same obligation shall be imposed on a person who infringes a law 
which is intended to protect another person. If, according to the content of that 
law, it may also be infringed without fault, the obligation to provide compensation 
shall arise only in the event of fault. 
WIDL 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
2. Gesetz über die Haftung für fehlerhafte Produkte (Law on liability for 
defective products) (ProdHaftG) of 15 December 1989 (BGBl. I, p. 2198), 
as most recently amended by the Law of 17 July 2017 (BGBl. I, p. 2421) 
with effect from 22 July 2017: 
Paragraph 1 Liability 
(1) If, due to a defect in a product, a person dies, is injured or his health is 
impaired or there is damage to an item of property, the producer of the product 
shall compensate the injured person for the damage which arises as a result 
thereof. […] [special rule for the case of damage to property not relevant here] 
(2) […] 
[…] 
[…] [cases of exclusion of the producer’s obligation to pay compensation not 
relevant here] 
(3) […] [cases of exclusion of the producer’s obligation to pay compensation 
for a component part not relevant here] 
(4) The burden of proving the defect, the damage and the causal relationship 
between defect and damage shall lie with the injured person. […] [rule on the 
burden of proof where the obligation to pay compensation is excluded under 
subparagraphs 2 or 3, which is not relevant here] 
Paragraph 3 Defects 
(1) A product has a defect when it does not provide the safety which may 
reasonably be expected, taking all circumstances into account, including 
(a) its presentation, 
(b) the use to which it could reasonably be expected to be put, 
(c) the time when it was put into circulation. 
(2) A product does not have a defect for the sole reason that a better product is 
subsequently put into circulation. 
Paragraph 13 Extinguishment of claims 
(1) The claim under Paragraph 1 shall be extinguished ten years after the date 
on which the producer put into circulation the product which caused the damage. 
This shall not apply if a legal dispute or proceedings for an order for payment are 
pending in relation to the claim. 
(2) […] [concerns special cases not relevant here] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 12. 2024 – CASE C-887/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
Paragraph 15 Liability for pharmaceutical products, liability under other legal 
provisions 
(1) […] [only concerns liability for pharmaceutical products] 
(2) The provision made under subparagraph 1 shall be without prejudice to 
liability on the basis of other provisions. 
3. Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) […] 
[…] 
[…] [The provisions of the ZPO reproduced are linked to the limitation period 
under the BGB and are irrelevant to the questions referred.] 
[…] 
[Signatures of the judges]