1. Translations of the BGB (except for § 906 subs. 1 sent. 2, 3 BGB) are taken from S. Goren, The German Civil Code (1994). For a translation of the German delict provisions see also B.S. Markesinis, The German Law of Torts (4th ed. 2002) 14–18.
2. See Markesinis (fn. 1) 86, and for the terminology Ch. v. Bar, Entwicklungen und Entwicklungstendenzen im Recht der Verkehrs(sicherungs)pflichten, Juristische Schulung (Jus) 1988, 169.
3. Reichsgericht in Zivilsachen (Supreme Court of the German Reich for Civil Matters, RGZ) 52, 373 is considered to be the starting point of this process. See K. Larenz/ C.-W. Canaris, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol. II/2 (13th ed. 1994) 400. A list of case-law-created Verkehrspflichten (classed alphabetically) can be found in H. Sprau, in: O. Palandt (Palandt/Sprau), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (65th ed. 2006) § 823 no. 185 ff.
4. See, e.g., Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court for Civil Matters, BGH), Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2001, 2019, 2020; NJW 1990, 1236 ff.; Larenz/Canaris (fn. 3) 399 f. § 836–838 BGB are statutory expressions of this general principle.
5. An example for this approach is the case-law regarding fault-based liability of producers (Produzentenhaftung) of cigarettes or sweets. The courts deny a duty to warn about the risks the consumption of these goods usually entails because the average consumer knows about these risks. See, e.g., Oberlandesgericht (Court of Appeal, OLG) Hamm, Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht (EWiR) 2004, 935, annotation by M. Adams/C. Merten; OLG Düsseldorf, Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 2003, 912. As a counter-example see Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen (Federal Supreme Court for Civil Matters, BGHZ) 116, 60 = NJW 1992, 560, concerning the risk of tooth decay caused by sweetened tea for children (Kindertee).