Does a lessor have a duty of care in respect of (in this case) Essent to avoid risks? The District Court ruled that the lessor as contracting party had a duty of care vis-à-vis Essent and was liable for the loss sustained by Essent due to the manipulation of the electricity connection by the lessee/lessees. According to the District Court, the lessor could have realised an independent connection for its lessees to avoid risks. Since the lessor did not take sufficient precautions, it did not fulfil its duty of care vis-à-vis Essent. As a result, it failed to fulfil the agreement and the lessor is obliged to compensate the loss sustained by Essent due to its failure.