When Cranes Aren't Enough: Who Bears the Risk for Wrongly Ordered Equipment?

You order a service from a professional, they carry it out exactly to your specification, and yet a loss of almost four million crowns arises. Who bears the consequences? The Supreme Court had to resolve exactly this question in a case that should be required reading for every entrepreneur who commissions specialised work.

The company GASCONTROL was laying pipework as part of a large heat-supply construction project. To handle heavy pipe assemblies, it ordered three cranes from Hanyš – Jeřábnické práce. It determined the number of cranes itself, on the basis of its designer's project documentation. On the fateful day of 23 July 2022, all three cranes tried to lift an assembly of fifteen welded pipe sections at once. The load slipped during the lift and the pipework was destroyed by the fall. The loss exceeded CZK 3.9 million.

Designer versus crane operator: whose problem is it?

GASCONTROL sued the crane company, arguing that, as a professional in load lifting, it should have recognised that three cranes were not enough for such a manoeuvre. It claimed the accident was caused by a poor, unsynchronised lift or inadequate checking of the sling by the crane operators.

The court of first instance partially sided with both parties. It held that both companies were experts in their fields — one in pipe systems, the other in crane work — and that both had neglected due care. It split the loss in half and awarded the claimant about two million crowns.

The Regional Court in Prague, however, saw it differently. After reviewing the evidence, it reached a clear conclusion: the cause of the loss was the insufficient number of cranes, which the customer had itself specified. The crane company had done exactly what the customer ordered — it supplied the three requested cranes and carried out the lift according to the customer's requirements. It breached no contractual or statutory duty.

The court's key finding was clear: the number of cranes was undersized and it was not realistic to carry out the lift without the load sagging. But that specification was not set by the crane company — it was set by the customer itself, on the basis of its own expert's project.

What follows for practice?

The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and upheld the Regional Court's decision. In its reasoning it recalled fundamental principles that every entrepreneur should know:

• Whoever specifies the parameters of a job is responsible for their correctness. If you order a specific number of cranes on the basis of your own project, you cannot then blame the supplier for there being too few.
• A professional is liable for the quality of performance, not the correctness of the specification. The crane company carried out the work expertly and in line with the order. That the order rested on a mistaken assumption is not its problem.
• The burden of proof lies on the party alleging a breach of duty. GASCONTROL did not prove that the crane company had breached any contractual or statutory duty.

An interesting aspect was the claimant's objection that the appellate court's decision was surprising and that the court should have advised it of a change in the legal assessment. The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that a court is not obliged to consult the parties in advance about its intended view. Where the facts were sufficiently clarified and the claimant asserted no relevant facts as to the defendant's alleged breach of duty, there was no reason for additional advice.

The lesson for entrepreneurs is clear: if you commission specialised work and set its technical parameters yourself, you assume responsibility for the correctness of those parameters. Shifting the blame to the supplier where it merely met your own requirements will not stand up in court. To protect yourself, leave the technical specification to the supplier, or have your own solution assessed by an independent specialist.

Source: Supreme Court, 33 Cdo 2804/2025