What responsibility remains with the event organiser when contractors take on security tasks?

Specialist planners, technology companies and security services take on important tasks at an event. Engaging them can distribute responsibility effectively. It does not, however, automatically mean that the organiser is released from all of its own duties and liability risks. What matters is the specific allocation of tasks and how it is actually put into practice.

Transferring tasks and observing the duties that remain

Anyone who creates or allows a hazard to persist within their area of responsibility must, in principle, take the necessary and reasonable protective measures. Duties to maintain safety (Verkehrssicherungspflichten) can be transferred to third parties. According to the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice, however, limited supervisory duties remain with the party originally responsible; at the same time, the party taking over can itself become responsible [1].

For event organisation, a clear agreement on tasks, powers and interfaces is therefore advisable. The extent of the checks required depends on the individual case. It does not follow as a general rule that every service must be fully double-checked on a technical level.

Distinguishing civil liability from criminal liability

If a culpable breach of duty causes damage, claims for compensation may arise, in particular under § 823 BGB. Where contractual obligations exist, the organiser may also be answerable for the fault of persons it uses to perform them (Erfüllungsgehilfen) under § 278 BGB. Merely selecting a specialist firm does not rule out such attribution [2].

Under criminal law, the personal responsibility of the individuals who acted or were obliged to act is examined. In the case of negligently caused injuries or deaths, §§ 229 and 222 StGB respectively may apply. Criminal liability for an omission requires, among other things, a legal duty to act under § 13 StGB. An accident alone proves neither a breach of duty nor criminal liability [3].

Deriving decisions from identifiable shortcomings

A fictitious example: before the event begins, a check shows that a sound system intended for warnings does not reach significant visitor areas. The fact that a contractor was engaged does not yet answer how this shortcoming is to be dealt with.

In practice, rectification, a suitable substitute measure or an adjustment of operations need to be assessed. If a necessary protective function cannot be ensured, postponing, interrupting or cancelling the event may also become necessary. Which decision is called for depends on the hazard, the requirements and the alternatives available.

For organisers this means: check professional suitability, define responsibilities, organise appropriate checks and respond to identified shortcomings. Documentation makes these steps traceable; the necessary protective measures must actually be implemented.

Context: general orientation on German law, research as of 1 November 2026, not an assessment of individual cases. Recommendations and the example are editorial conclusions; the example is fictitious. The BGH decision referred to deals with general principles of delegation on the basis of a property case. The specific responsibility at an event depends on tasks, contracts and actual means of influence. Operator, organiser, management and event management are not automatically the same in legal terms. Public-law operator duties, the effects of permits, insurance cover and possible recourse claims require separate consideration. For publication with a claim to legal reliability, a review by a legal expert is advisable.