A foreman falls when he chokes while drinking coffee and is seriously injured. The injured person is convinced that this was an industrial accident. The professional association sees it differently and refuses benefits. Ultimately the dispute ends up in court. The State Social Court of Saxony-Anhalt recognized the fall as an industrial accident because drinking coffee took place in a company-organized context (ref.: L 6 U 45/23).

Getting coffee at work is covered

If an employee is injured on the way to a drinks vending machine set up in the company building, this is also considered an accident at work. In this case there is an internal connection with the insured activity.

Unlike eating and drinking themselves, which are legally considered part of the private sphere of life as food intake, traveling to get food is generally insured (State Social Court of Hesse, Ref.: L 3U 202/21).

Don’t forget to clock out

Employees are obliged to record their working and break times correctly. Anyone who is careless here or even takes breaks while logged in is committing working time fraud. And under certain circumstances, this can even lead to immediate termination without warning, for example if intentional misuse of the electronic time recording can be proven.

In one specific case, a cleaner didn’t clock out for a ten-minute coffee break at the café across the street. When asked about it by her boss, she initially denied it and tried to talk her way out of it. However, her employer was able to prove that she was cheating on working hours and terminated her without notice. And even though the woman was severely disabled, he got away with it in court (Hamm Regional Labor Court, Ref.: 13 Sa 1007/22).

Price indication per coffee capsule is not sufficient

So that consumers do not have to spend a long time calculating and can see a price disadvantage at first glance, a basic price must be stated on product packaging. According to the Price Information Ordinance (PAngV), this is the price per 100 grams or per kilogram. This also applies to coffee capsules.

In a specific case, an electronics store that also sold coffee capsules as accessories for coffee machines pointed out the flavors and the price per pack of ten. But the base price was missing. According to the judge, this is a violation of the PAngV and therefore anti-competitive behavior. Consumers can generally calculate how much a capsule costs. But a comparison with instant coffee in larger packs is simply not possible (Federal Court of Justice, Ref.: I ZR 85/18).

Hot coffee in the car can hurt

Coffee-to-go is part of everyday life for many people. This was also the case for the young passenger who treated herself to a hot drink to wake up in the drive-thru of a fast food restaurant on the way to school. But when she placed the mug with the hot coffee between her thighs to take his drink from the driver, the hot contents spilled over her legs, causing the student to suffer second-degree burns.

She sued for damages and compensation for pain and suffering because the employee of the fast-food restaurant did not press the lid of the take-away cup completely down, so that it only rested loosely on the container. But the lawsuit was dismissed. According to the ruling, the customer must not assume that the disposable cup is tightly closed. Even if the cup lid was put on incorrectly, the main blame lies with the young woman. The traffic safety obligation does not mean that everyone is exempt from all risks. You also have to prevent recognizable dangers yourself (Munich District Court I, Ref.: 30 S 3668/11).

Hot coffee on a plane can be expensive

Hot coffee on a plane can be expensive. It wasn’t the narrowness of the aircraft cabin or a jerky plane that was to blame, but simply an inept stewardess: And so a pot of freshly brewed, hot coffee ended up on a passenger.

The mishap was not only painful, but also had dire consequences for the airline because it was not a typical aviation accident. She had to pay almost 1,000 euros in compensation to the woman with the burn injuries (Düsseldorf Regional Court, Ref.: 22 S 266/03).