Choose language:
In principle one is responsible only for own being to blame for, but this principle broke through in several respects: culpable acting of assistants under certain conditions the client added like own, in detail arrives it however on the adhesion basis. Also acting debt-unable children or the behavior animals can justify compensation obligations for the supervision-requiring persons.
With the assistants it is crucial whether the compensation obligation is based on contractual or legal basis: who assigns an assistant or a subcontractor instead of its fulfilment of a contract, is responsible for its being to blame for as for own ("§ 278 BGB): the contracting party can build on the quality promise of its partner. Where such contractual relations is missing, no reason exists to such increased consideration: "§ the obligation for accrual for damage caused by performing assistants limits 831 exp. 1 BGB in the cases, in which the proprietor cannot occupy that he selected and supervised the assistant carefully.
Children are to be supervised - depending upon age and development differently intensively -. The supervision-requiring (parents, child gardner, teacher) are responsible to donating behavior of the children for the consequences of damage, if they cannot occupy sufficient supervision ("§ 832 exp. 1 sentence 2 BGB): the sentence "to parents are responsible for their children "is thus in its wrong: it is correct that parents cling only if their children caused a damage, which would have been omitted with due supervision.
Something similar applies to the adhesion of the keeper of an animal: the owner of a commercially used animal can object that it met its control duty ("§ 833 BGB). Both cases presuppose thereby a being to blame for even if the lack is subordinated with the supervision in the law; this "being to blame for assumption" can be disproved however by the responsible person - this lets its adhesion be void. That does not apply with the owner of a "luxury animal", i.e. an animal, which is not kept commercial. Here the liability of the keeper of an animal is considered as a special case of the absolute liability.
Differently this is only in the cases of the genuine absolute liability: in these cases in particular the legal requirements for compensation from traffic law the damage must only prove that it was hurt with the enterprise of the KFZ of the in order to justify the adhesion of the KFZ owner in accordance with "§ 7 StVG - however (in accordance with "§ 12 exp. 1 StVG) hum-moderately limited -. The owner could resist only with the objection, the accident is based on higher force; being to blame for, about a driving error, is not necessary for its adhesion on compensation.
In comparable way it does not require being to blame for with damage, which occurs for instance with the enterprise of courses (rail or suspension railway "§ 1 HaftPflG) or within the range of the product liability due to product errors ("§ 1 ProdHG). Here as within the range of the traffic the endangerment set with opening of the source of danger justifies special duty to exercise diligence and puts aside each being to blame for.
In order to become compensation requiring, a connection must exist between the action of the and the damage. One designates this Zurechnungszuammenhang with the term of causality. Becomes in the compensation right between adhesion (the unlawful act leads to the right property injury) and adhesion (the right property injury leads to the damage) differentiated between causality.
Under causality one understands each condition necessary for the success entrance in the scientific sense, with whose omission thus also success would be void (Conditio sine qua non formula). This principle leads in the civil liability law to exaggerations: the driver, who drives with superelevated speed to the place, at which the accident occurs, there however to the traffic rules holds themselves, would be in this sense for the accident, there he with (always) normal behavior at the accident time not at the accident scene would have been nevertheless causal. Therefore the iurisdiction corrects these unsatisfactory results over the requirement of the objective responsibility or only if the condition leads under normal conditions without Hinzutreten of special unpredictable causes to success, the civilian begins like criminal responsibility. In addition, this criterion is indistinct: when using one only for adjoining owner traffic certified road occur a traffic accident between two driving through KFZ, by which the front seat passenger is hurt. According to the condition theory the accident is to be avoided by choice of a certified distance; also after the would be this damage to the consciously StVO adversely acting driver to be added. The science of the protection purpose of the standard avoids this inequitable result as it to the fact turns off that it was a goal of the blockage for the transit traffic apart from the general road safety to concretely avoid accidents which are due to increased traffic volume.
This theory of the protection purpose of the standard was developed first in connection with "§ 823 exp. 2 BGB: the injury of laws for the protection is adhesion relevant only if with them concretely the protection of the hurt right property were aimed at. This basic idea is transferred also to contractual requirements: The salesman of a used KFZ had assured untruthfully accident liberty. With one of the buyer alone caused accident the KFZ is totally damaged and he is hurt. Requirement on repayment of the purchase price stands for the buyer too ("§ 346 paragraph 1 BGB) without objection possibility for the salesman; He cannot demand substitution of its personal injury caused by an accident and the load with obligations or damage caused by an accident, since accident, but do not deception-cause these requirements.
In the civil proceedings the principle applies: Everyone must prove for it the favorable. Different rules apply to adhesion-justifying and adhesion-filling out causality. While to first generally the damage must furnish the full proof, the free estimation stands for the judge to extent and height of the damage too ("§ 287 exp. 1 ZPO), if the remaining conditions for the adhesion are fulfilled. In the physician adhesion special rules e.g. apply to the burden of proof.
Finally the must have illegally caused the damage. In the civil law the illegality follows with direct injuries by positive doing regularly from the right property injury. In individual cases acting can be justified however by a justification as for instance self-defence; then the illegality and therefore also the obligation to pay damages is void. Indirect unlawful acts and omissions are to be regarded as illegal only if the offended here against a right obligation - e.g. a duty to safeguard traffic -.
Here the so-called legal alternative behavior can raise problems. If the the damage also with legal behavior would have caused can the claim for damages be void.
If the from indebtedness or absolute liability owes compensation, this demand is not limited by limits of liability: it clings in unrestricted height, if for absolute liabilities special maximum limits of liability are not intended.
Differently than in the anglo American area after German right with the requirement for compensation not one is awarded to the damage "punishment "(exemplary or punitiv damages), but only "the disadvantage "balanced, which was caused to him by the This is the difference between the actual condition and a fictitious financial situation, which would be to be determined without the damaging event. Therefore for instance the current value of damaged things is to be refunded, not their original value. Regularly, thus re-establishment of the original condition stands for damaged reparations in kind by the too ("§ 249 exp. 1 BGB), instead of whose the damage can demand the necessary cash indemnity however with damages to property or person ("§ 249 exp. 2 sentence 1 BGB). From all adhesion bases with injury of persons a smart money is granted (e.g. "§ 253 exp. 2 BGB, "§ 8 sentence 2 ProdHG, "§ 11 StVG).
However in accordance with "§ 254 exp. 2 BGB possibly own being to blame for can be likewise held out to the victim like an endangerment outgoing from it. Being to blame for the involved ones is confronted each other. Thus in KFZ accidents with consideration of the mutual operating dangers the indebtedness portions are weighted. A jointly responsibleness of the damage does not let be void however the adhesion of the these withdraws only in exceptional cases behind the own fault of the damage.
However if duty to exercise diligence injuries third caused the damage (along), then this no effect for the damage has: it can adhere to everyone the accomplice ("§ 830 BGB) or responsible person ("§ 840 BGB) and demand from this the entire compensation, without pulling from the inability to pay of a debtor disadvantages. This argument shifts the legislator into the camp to the compensation obligated ("§ 830 exp. 1, "§ 840 exp. 1 with "§ 426 BGB).
We found here 56 articles.
We found here 5 related websites.
Index | Privacy | Terms Of Use | Sitemap | Feedback
Printer Friendly Format![Bookmark page - Payment of damages [2 / 3]](/site/templates/standard/images/icons/favourites.gif){kind=icon}
Bookmark this page
Back to "Damage"
Back to top