Broken Arm on Lunch Break: German Court Expands Home Office Accident Protection
26.06.2026 - 01:52:07 | boerse-global.de
A 59-year-old worker slipped on a wet floor at a Stuttgart recycling yard on June 24, 2026, and his foot got caught under a reversing van. On the same day, an 18-year-old apprentice on a construction site nearby suffered severe cuts from a circular saw — investigators have already ruled out a technical defect with that tool. Both incidents, now under separate probes, highlight the real-world stakes behind a flurry of recent German court rulings that are redefining when employers are liable for harm.
The most talked-about decision comes from the Darmstadt Social Court, which declared that a woman who broke her upper arm while walking to a food stand during her home-office day suffered a workplace accident. The judges reasoned that eating was necessary to maintain her ability to work for the rest of the shift, and that the journey to an external food outlet enjoys the same legal protection as a trip to the office canteen. Crucially, the court stressed that this coverage only kicks in when employer and employee have a formal agreement to work from home — without that contractual basis, the home office cannot be treated as an equivalent business premises.
Speaking of employer responsibility, the recent rulings show how crucial it is to have proper health and safety documentation in place. Without documented risk assessments and policies, your business could face serious liability. The free Health & Safety Toolkit provides ready-to-use risk assessments, checklists, and toolbox talks to help you comply with UK regulations and protect your team. Download the free Health & Safety Toolkit
That ruling sits alongside a separate opinion from the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia, issued on May 28, 2026. A civil servant was stung by a bee while cycling to work, and the court found that his employer must cover the costs because the general dangers of commuting fall under the employer’s responsibility — and the choice of transport is up to the worker, provided they do not take an unreasonable risk.
Clear as those boundaries may seem, other courts have drawn lines in different directions. The Frankenthal Regional Court dismissed a customer’s claim for pain-and-suffering damages after she cut the frenulum under her tongue on a glass at a public establishment. A visual check of the glasses for obvious cracks was enough, the judges ruled; there is no obligation to examine every vessel under a microscope.
Back in the workplace, the Nordhausen Labour Court tackled a recurring tension: sick notes submitted right after a dismissal. The court reaffirmed that a properly issued medical certificate of incapacity carries great evidentiary weight. Employers need to present serious circumstantial evidence to challenge it; merely pointing to the timing is not enough.
Amid these case-by-case clarifications, practical guidance on heat at work has also been updated. From 26 degrees Celsius, employers should take protective measures, and spaces above 35 degrees are considered unsuitable for work without additional intervention. But there is no statutory right to “heat-free” leave — walking off the job without permission can still lead to disciplinary consequences, the guides warn.
