## Facts

- A German machine supplier sold an American company a machine used to stamp information on electrical parts.
- The machine’s motor was manufactured in the United States.
- An operator worked for the American purchaser.
- While at work, the operator turned the machine off, put her hand inside to look for a broken-off piece, and then accidentally switched the motor on again.
- The stamping arm trapped the operator’s wrist.
- The operator initially received treatment for minor wrist injuries and was not hospitalized.
- Later, the operator was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and underwent surgery.
- The operator brought a warranty-based claim against the German supplier in a Massachusetts state court and obtained a money judgment that included an award of $275,000 and compounded interest.
- The supplier appealed, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the award.
- The operator then filed an action in the Landgericht Berlin seeking recognition and enforcement of the Massachusetts judgment in Germany and sought additional interest in the German enforcement proceeding.
- The operator submitted the U.S. judgments to the German court; the Massachusetts trial judgment contained no written reasons, and the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision focused on the supplier’s objections.
- The supplier opposed enforcement, arguing that the U.S. judgment violated German public order (ordre public), including in light of the damages amount and the form of the U.S. decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the Massachusetts money judgment could be recognized and enforced in Germany, or whether enforcement had to be refused as contrary to German ordre public.
2. Whether the lack of written reasons in the Massachusetts trial judgment, and the limited scope of the Massachusetts appellate discussion, required denial of enforcement on procedural public-policy grounds.
3. Whether a substantial compensatory award and compounded interest—though not labeled punitive—could be treated as unacceptable under German ordre public.

## Decision

- The Landgericht Berlin granted recognition and enforcement of the Massachusetts judgment against the German supplier.
- The court rejected the supplier’s ordre-public objections based on the amount of damages and the compounded interest reflected in the U.S. judgment.
- The court did not treat the absence of trial-court written reasons, in the circumstances shown, as a procedural defect barring enforcement.
- The court declined to re-litigate liability, fault allocation, or the merits of the Massachusetts decision as part of the enforcement request.

## Legal Principles

- The ordre-public exception is applied narrowly; recognition and enforcement are refused only when enforcement would be plainly incompatible with fundamental German legal values.
- In an enforcement action, a German court does not re-examine the merits of the foreign judgment, including findings of liability, contributory fault, or the amount of damages.
- A foreign judgment’s format need not match German practice; the absence of detailed written reasons does not by itself establish a denial of basic procedural fairness when the debtor had notice, an opportunity to be heard, and appellate review.
- A compensatory damages award that exceeds what German courts commonly award does not alone violate ordre public; the bar is met only where the result is so extreme that it effectively functions as a penalty or is otherwise intolerable under German law.
- Compounded interest awarded by a foreign court is not automatically contrary to German ordre public; the interest component must be assessed for whether it has a punitive character rather than compensating for the time value of money or delay in payment.

## Conclusion

In **Re the Enforcement of a U.S. Judgment**, the Landgericht Berlin enforced a Massachusetts warranty judgment for a U.S. workplace injury, holding that neither the size of the compensatory award nor the inclusion of compounded interest, nor the limited written reasoning in the U.S. decisions, justified refusal under the narrow German ordre-public exception, and that the German court could not revisit the merits in an enforcement proceeding.


Re the Enforcement of a U.S. Judgment, Case 20.0.314/88, 3 Int. Lit. Proc. 430 (1992)