Court rules on damages for sowing GM maize

The plaintiff – a farmer – had filed a lawsuit against the seed manufacturer for damages due to the sale and delivery of contaminated corn seed. He had purchased seed from the seed company through a regional dealer on the basis of a marketing partnership agreement and had sown it on approximately 12 hectares of his land. As part of the state seed monitoring program, his field had been sampled and found to contain less than 0.1% contamination. The responsible monitoring authority subsequently ordered the removal of the sown corn. The plaintiff had properly destroyed the corn field. He was no longer able to sow any new crops in the current year.

By way of damages, the plaintiff sought a total of €22,800.00 in additional processing costs and crop loss costs. He argued that his claim already arose from the contract, but in any event from strict liability under Section 32 of the Genetic Engineering Act (GenTG) or tort law, because Sections 6, 14, and 32 of the GenTG are protective laws within the meaning of tort liability.

The Memmingen Regional Court dismissed the action in the first instance. The Munich Higher Regional Court acknowledged the farmer's claim for €12,323.00. It considered the maize to be defective because, pursuant to Section 14, Paragraph 1, Nos. 1 and 2 of the Genetic Engineering Act (GenTG), it could not be cultivated, i.e., released, or placed on the market without authorization. It then had to extensively address the question of the seed producer's negligence because, like the lower court, it considered that there was no claim against the seed producer directly based on Section 32 of the Genetic Engineering Act. This conclusion should not be objectionable, as the seed producer is neither the operator of a genetic engineering facility nor has carried out any genetic engineering work.

This publication can also be found on the website of the law firm Dr. Kauch .