Process for road accident
A Hungarian motorist violates a Münchnerin, the insurance company promises to the settlement of the claim, but in the end is the victim of the stick. Sigrid B. must experience that you may well be right, it just needs to get a long but not.
Law and justice - for example, Sigrid did not fit together. The Munich was the victim of a normal traffic accident. Now it must find that it indeed be right - and may yet be brought pitfalls in paragraphs jungle-case basis.
The physiotherapist was in May 2007 "were taken from the motor scooter" in the street Denninger of a Hungarian motorist, as she puts it. She suffered a broken collarbone and severe amnesia - can not remember the crash was so. Even the Allianz insurance company admitted in a letter soon after one to a state authority: "The sole fault of the insured at Allianz Hungaria driver is not in dispute." And sitting in the insurance industry Unterföhring further explains: "We regulate this damage to the alliance Hungaria." The pure vehicle damage because they had already refunded.
The dispute was still at the loss of earnings of self-employed as well as pain and suffering. In it, the District Court of Munich I. The traffic judge found the sole responsibility of the Hungarian, who also interpreted "the unconditional control of the property damage as an acknowledgment of debt." She denounced the insurance to pay for injuries and damages.
It was less than hoped for, but Sigrid B. took these amounts - if grudgingly - to be acceptable. Since the accident almost four years had passed: Around 10,000 € attorney fees and an even higher loss of earnings had worn down the self-employed and financially. But their hopes soon to have peace now vanished,: The lawyer for the insurance appealed to the Higher Regional Court of Appeals, called the ruling of first instance "inconsistent and confusing".
The Senate gave OLG transport him to the complete surprise of Sigrid B. Law. The woman had no claim against the German alliance, the Court of Appeal judges judged - this is the wrong defendant. The Munich-based company had appeared only as a "helper regulation." That have paid for this "voluntary" for Allianz Hungaria damages, makes him still a long way to correct Defendant in this litigation.
At this point, Sigrid learned from the first time as "German Office Green Card".Which is responsible for accidents caused by a foreign drivers in Germany. This association, said the court now, the defendant was correct. All this failed to recognize the district court. Sigrid B. had to read this sentence, the feeling of being put off for years with promises - to make them then run into a knife.
Your lawyer wants to give up despite the "significant change in the attitude of the Alliance" and not carry out the sentence at first instance. He refers to another letter in which the alliance has assured him that after the process is finally want to settle the accident - it was the insurance given to recognize themselves as a real adversary process, says the lawyer.
Sigrid B. understand the world anymore - at least not to the lawyers.
Monday 12 December 2011
Accident on the kart track: Who pays vehicle damage?
Area of Law: Traffic Law
Judge of the District Court
05/12/2011
Actually, no traffic law - but it fits somehow out here:
The plaintiff makes a claim against the defendant for damages for an incident from 18/05/2011 to 20.30 clock on the kart track at the L-... asserted in H.
On the evening of 18.05.2011, the applicant was working with four of her colleagues on the kart track. Altogether there were two groups on this day on the track. The second group consisted of six English-speaking people. Against
Admission Entgeld they used the go-karts and safety helmets of the operator.Farmer to the kart track is the plaintiff. The track is divided into a 600-meter indoor and 300 meters of outdoor area, where the train before
Re-entrance into the hall narrows quickly and then runs in an almost 180 degrees around the leading sharp left turn. In the fourth Round took place in this left-hander from contentious cause a clash of go-karts to the defendant and that of the moving front of her witnesses I, as a result kept by the defendant's go-kart collided head-on into the guardrail near the gate and was injured. Scope and amount of go-kart on the damage occurred is in dispute between the parties. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay due compensation and report the damage to their liability insurance. He initially presented at the 20.05.2011 an amount of 1,662.58 EUR including VAT in the invoice. With attorney letter dated 06.06.2011, he reduced his claim to the
Net amount of 1,397.13 EUR and finally demanded an invoice dated 17.6.2011, at least the payment of an amount of 861.29 EUR plus 19% VAT, a total of 1,024.93 EUR. Because of the precise content of the invoice dated 17.06.2011 referred to page 6 of generality. A settlement of claims by the defendant by letter dated 05.07.2011 has been rejected.
The plaintiff claimed that the hall supervision prior to the accident on the kart track next to one of
other drivers had noticed the defendant because of very aggressive driving. For this reason, the witness did T in the fourth Round of observation on the exterior of the door go to the driveway. After the observation, it might be come to the accident, that the defendant did not attempt just before the entrance hall, with high speed to overtake the car in front I left her witnesses. Here, the defendant with the go-kart against the left barrier is encountered. Your car has to be rotated, collided with the GoKart of the Lord and then I crashed into the front against the guard rail of the gate.The applicant considers that the defendant had caused the accident on the kart track by a grossly negligent driving errors. For you pass him was hopeless from the start. The plaintiff claimed that the accident broke the silent blocks of go-karts, bent the steering wheel column and the steering wheel and the cart frame and the complete protection of the go-karts were damaged. For the study conducted by his mechanic repairs he was guilty of material costs 465.93 EUR and must work 18 hours per 28.00 EUR and 55,00 EUR spend packaging and shipping costs. Here he takes one side of abstract
a damage fee of 25.00 EUR.
The plaintiff contends that
to condemn the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to the amount of 891.29 EUR plus 5% interest above the base rate since 07/13/2011.
The defendant sought to dismiss the action.
The defendant claims to have started on the evening in third position of the driver.After three
Rounds without overtaking the witness I was overtaken by the other in front of her colleagues traveling N
been, so that the witness was because I moved from the position in front of her. In the fourth round it was retracted in the outer area on the right side into the last sharp left curve and a moving behind her GoKart been rammed from behind left, so that they had been pushed onto the vehicle of the witnesses I. Thus they have lost control of her go-kart and crashed into the fence on the right trail-side. They had no intention to overtake. The witness I had managed to catch his car again and drive on. The car that was rammed from behind their go-kart, had been driven by a man the other group and went to the crash just past her. The supervisor had to this point has not been on the outside, but it was only arrived at, after which the 10 other riders were once again driven past her. It believes that the accident alone
the moving behind her driver had been inflicted. After the accident were all participants to
the incident and questioned whose addresses have been recorded by the police, but none of the
another group wanted to admit to being up to her. In addition, the applicant believes that only overweight violations may result in a liability of participants to the operator.Even the operator against the principles of liability for the performance of motor sport would apply.
Because of the additional lecture is on the pleadings exchanged plus appendices removed by reference.
The court heard the parties in person and evidence collected by examination of the witnesses T and I. Because of the result is on the record of the hearing on 26.10.2011, 72 ff d. A. referenced.
Reasons
The lawsuit is unfounded.
The plaintiff against the defendant is not entitled to compensation.
As a basis for a claim in this respect will only be considered a liability of the defendant under § 280 para 1 BGB in tort or pursuant to § 823 para 1 BGB, each in conjunction with § 249 BGB. However, the defendant because of an implied limitation of liability for intent and gross negligence has to stand up. Neither
a grossly negligent breach of obligations under the lease the defendants on the go-kart or a grossly negligent damage to property
the go-kart by the defendant can be seen. The relevant evidence is the extent of demonstration and beweispflichtigem plaintiff did not succeed.
By paying the entrance fee and the fee for the use of go-kart and the safety helmet is between the defendant and the plaintiff came as the operator of the kart track, a lease agreement pursuant to § 535 BGB of the GoKart about. This lease is subject, however, it violates the principles of a rental car contract, but it is about the meaning and purpose of using a go-karts on a kart track an implied limitation on damages caused by intent or gross negligence. Appropriate limitations of liability by contract are generally permissible even for tort claims (Palandt / Heinrichs, BGB,
276 Rn. 35). You can come even tacitly concluded, if the intention is to limit liability as is implied from the circumstances. This is especially the case if it is established that the tortfeasor, the law had been previously discussed, one
Disclaimer and had demanded that the victim could not reasonably have denied (Palandt / Heinrichs, BGB, 276 Rn. 37). The rental of a go-karts is different than a regular car rental contract is not participating in public traffic, but the use of go-karts on the kart track in sportlerischem competition with the other drivers. In that regard, the relationship among the participants recognized that a liability for damages in case of accidents
risky than the known motor sport is excluded if the tortfeasor who caused the accident without a significant violation of the rules (BGH NJW 2003, 2018-2020, Juris quoted in para. 26 ff.) This bezeiht also the liability for a sports accident on a go-kart track (OLG Düsseldorf, NJW-RR 1997, 408-409, Juris quoted in para. 9 f.), and is based on the assumption of a consent of the participants, the illegality the injury and thus eliminates a requirement of liability. Because the drivers associated with such an athletic competition risks are well known. You know that both the vehicles and even had to take substantial risks and are exposed to this because of the sporting pleasure, the stress or the joy of risk in buying. Each participant of the competition must therefore rely on not to be arrested for such damages claim, which he injures a competitor without significant violation of the typical risk situations due to the competition. With its own sports cars, this means that each participant has a corresponding property damage shall be borne by themselves. This suggests that, in relation to a participant operator of a go-kart track, which makes the vehicles available for the athletic competition, from an implied liability for damages caused by negligence to go. This is also suggested that the applicant, as operator of the kart track would be quite possible for the visitors of his kart track go-karts made available to complete an appropriate insurance.
In contrast, applies to the defendant, that the participation will be at motor races of their liability insurance probably not covered. For go-karts are subject, unless they are conducted on public roads not
compulsory insurance according to § 1 liability insurance law (PflVG). According to § 4 para. 4 of the regulation of insurance in motor vehicle liability insurance (KfzPflVV) can be excluded to participate in motor sports events, or the practice drives the cost of this requirement of liability insurance.
It can not be assumed that a visitor to a kart track would be ready to go-karts go-kart track with the hired without a restriction
to use his liability to damages for gross negligence and willful misconduct. Had the defendant requested having regard to the legal status of the applicant, as operator with a disclaimer, then this would reasonably need to get involved.
Even after the presentation of the plaintiff to the happening of the accident on the kart track, it is likely to miss such a weighty rule violation by the defendant.
In any case is not proven such. For even the details of the witness T assumed to be correct, could the defendant be at best accused of being addressed, the sharp left bend too far inside and did not consider that the moving front of her witness I in the further course of the curve again with his vehicle on come inside, she would then be so in the roadway. But this would be a simple violation of the defendant's objections to the karting track rules to be observed before (cf. OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 14.11.2003, Az I-22 U 69/02, Juris quoted in para. 58).
Not even a clear overtaking the defendant is to be noted, moreover, would have meant the only simple rule violation. Rather, it has also in this constellation, an absolutely typical risk of driving event realized on a kart track (cf. BGH NJW 2003, 2018-2020, Juris quoted in para. 27). Even with sportlerischen rides a pleasure it is the rule that a driver attempted to test his skill and / or exploit the capacity of his vehicle, to achieve maximum speed, and either close ascends to vehicles ahead or to pass such an attempt ( Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, NJW-RR 1997, 408-409, Juris quoted in para. 9). Therefore, a special embossed by the nature of sport to create scale, which has not been assessed for any slight impairment of another athlete as negligent within the meaning of § 276 BGB, but a liability only for violations generally considered obese.
Witness D testified that he had observed outside standing, that the witness was approached I the strong left-hander at the end of the outside, the defendant contrast inside and witness I when driving into the curve, the GoKart touched the defendant. It was only the second time round "improved" his data as meaning that the defendant was wheeled into the witness of the Go-Kart I. Already hereafter
can be assumed that the accident possibly by a
simple indiscretion caused the defendant
has been. In addition, the accuracy of the information of the witness is subject to certain T concerns.
For one was with him to recognize a significant trend in favor of his employer
to testify. To recognize this was particularly the fact that his initial version of the
Collision was trying to correct. Second, the witness confirmed that I indicate the applicant, the supervisor was standing at the time of the accident at the start of the indoor area. Should this be the case, is very unlikely that the witness may have T from the process itself seen anything. Because the interior is a sight on the outer layer only through the two gates and restricted because of the distance. Ultimately, however, this may therefore be left open, because there is already a weighty rule violation is not reported it, so that was unnecessary, the hearing of other witnesses named by the defendant.
Judge of the District Court
05/12/2011
Actually, no traffic law - but it fits somehow out here:
The plaintiff makes a claim against the defendant for damages for an incident from 18/05/2011 to 20.30 clock on the kart track at the L-... asserted in H.
On the evening of 18.05.2011, the applicant was working with four of her colleagues on the kart track. Altogether there were two groups on this day on the track. The second group consisted of six English-speaking people. Against
Admission Entgeld they used the go-karts and safety helmets of the operator.Farmer to the kart track is the plaintiff. The track is divided into a 600-meter indoor and 300 meters of outdoor area, where the train before
Re-entrance into the hall narrows quickly and then runs in an almost 180 degrees around the leading sharp left turn. In the fourth Round took place in this left-hander from contentious cause a clash of go-karts to the defendant and that of the moving front of her witnesses I, as a result kept by the defendant's go-kart collided head-on into the guardrail near the gate and was injured. Scope and amount of go-kart on the damage occurred is in dispute between the parties. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay due compensation and report the damage to their liability insurance. He initially presented at the 20.05.2011 an amount of 1,662.58 EUR including VAT in the invoice. With attorney letter dated 06.06.2011, he reduced his claim to the
Net amount of 1,397.13 EUR and finally demanded an invoice dated 17.6.2011, at least the payment of an amount of 861.29 EUR plus 19% VAT, a total of 1,024.93 EUR. Because of the precise content of the invoice dated 17.06.2011 referred to page 6 of generality. A settlement of claims by the defendant by letter dated 05.07.2011 has been rejected.
The plaintiff claimed that the hall supervision prior to the accident on the kart track next to one of
other drivers had noticed the defendant because of very aggressive driving. For this reason, the witness did T in the fourth Round of observation on the exterior of the door go to the driveway. After the observation, it might be come to the accident, that the defendant did not attempt just before the entrance hall, with high speed to overtake the car in front I left her witnesses. Here, the defendant with the go-kart against the left barrier is encountered. Your car has to be rotated, collided with the GoKart of the Lord and then I crashed into the front against the guard rail of the gate.The applicant considers that the defendant had caused the accident on the kart track by a grossly negligent driving errors. For you pass him was hopeless from the start. The plaintiff claimed that the accident broke the silent blocks of go-karts, bent the steering wheel column and the steering wheel and the cart frame and the complete protection of the go-karts were damaged. For the study conducted by his mechanic repairs he was guilty of material costs 465.93 EUR and must work 18 hours per 28.00 EUR and 55,00 EUR spend packaging and shipping costs. Here he takes one side of abstract
a damage fee of 25.00 EUR.
The plaintiff contends that
to condemn the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to the amount of 891.29 EUR plus 5% interest above the base rate since 07/13/2011.
The defendant sought to dismiss the action.
The defendant claims to have started on the evening in third position of the driver.After three
Rounds without overtaking the witness I was overtaken by the other in front of her colleagues traveling N
been, so that the witness was because I moved from the position in front of her. In the fourth round it was retracted in the outer area on the right side into the last sharp left curve and a moving behind her GoKart been rammed from behind left, so that they had been pushed onto the vehicle of the witnesses I. Thus they have lost control of her go-kart and crashed into the fence on the right trail-side. They had no intention to overtake. The witness I had managed to catch his car again and drive on. The car that was rammed from behind their go-kart, had been driven by a man the other group and went to the crash just past her. The supervisor had to this point has not been on the outside, but it was only arrived at, after which the 10 other riders were once again driven past her. It believes that the accident alone
the moving behind her driver had been inflicted. After the accident were all participants to
the incident and questioned whose addresses have been recorded by the police, but none of the
another group wanted to admit to being up to her. In addition, the applicant believes that only overweight violations may result in a liability of participants to the operator.Even the operator against the principles of liability for the performance of motor sport would apply.
Because of the additional lecture is on the pleadings exchanged plus appendices removed by reference.
The court heard the parties in person and evidence collected by examination of the witnesses T and I. Because of the result is on the record of the hearing on 26.10.2011, 72 ff d. A. referenced.
Reasons
The lawsuit is unfounded.
The plaintiff against the defendant is not entitled to compensation.
As a basis for a claim in this respect will only be considered a liability of the defendant under § 280 para 1 BGB in tort or pursuant to § 823 para 1 BGB, each in conjunction with § 249 BGB. However, the defendant because of an implied limitation of liability for intent and gross negligence has to stand up. Neither
a grossly negligent breach of obligations under the lease the defendants on the go-kart or a grossly negligent damage to property
the go-kart by the defendant can be seen. The relevant evidence is the extent of demonstration and beweispflichtigem plaintiff did not succeed.
By paying the entrance fee and the fee for the use of go-kart and the safety helmet is between the defendant and the plaintiff came as the operator of the kart track, a lease agreement pursuant to § 535 BGB of the GoKart about. This lease is subject, however, it violates the principles of a rental car contract, but it is about the meaning and purpose of using a go-karts on a kart track an implied limitation on damages caused by intent or gross negligence. Appropriate limitations of liability by contract are generally permissible even for tort claims (Palandt / Heinrichs, BGB,
276 Rn. 35). You can come even tacitly concluded, if the intention is to limit liability as is implied from the circumstances. This is especially the case if it is established that the tortfeasor, the law had been previously discussed, one
Disclaimer and had demanded that the victim could not reasonably have denied (Palandt / Heinrichs, BGB, 276 Rn. 37). The rental of a go-karts is different than a regular car rental contract is not participating in public traffic, but the use of go-karts on the kart track in sportlerischem competition with the other drivers. In that regard, the relationship among the participants recognized that a liability for damages in case of accidents
risky than the known motor sport is excluded if the tortfeasor who caused the accident without a significant violation of the rules (BGH NJW 2003, 2018-2020, Juris quoted in para. 26 ff.) This bezeiht also the liability for a sports accident on a go-kart track (OLG Düsseldorf, NJW-RR 1997, 408-409, Juris quoted in para. 9 f.), and is based on the assumption of a consent of the participants, the illegality the injury and thus eliminates a requirement of liability. Because the drivers associated with such an athletic competition risks are well known. You know that both the vehicles and even had to take substantial risks and are exposed to this because of the sporting pleasure, the stress or the joy of risk in buying. Each participant of the competition must therefore rely on not to be arrested for such damages claim, which he injures a competitor without significant violation of the typical risk situations due to the competition. With its own sports cars, this means that each participant has a corresponding property damage shall be borne by themselves. This suggests that, in relation to a participant operator of a go-kart track, which makes the vehicles available for the athletic competition, from an implied liability for damages caused by negligence to go. This is also suggested that the applicant, as operator of the kart track would be quite possible for the visitors of his kart track go-karts made available to complete an appropriate insurance.
In contrast, applies to the defendant, that the participation will be at motor races of their liability insurance probably not covered. For go-karts are subject, unless they are conducted on public roads not
compulsory insurance according to § 1 liability insurance law (PflVG). According to § 4 para. 4 of the regulation of insurance in motor vehicle liability insurance (KfzPflVV) can be excluded to participate in motor sports events, or the practice drives the cost of this requirement of liability insurance.
It can not be assumed that a visitor to a kart track would be ready to go-karts go-kart track with the hired without a restriction
to use his liability to damages for gross negligence and willful misconduct. Had the defendant requested having regard to the legal status of the applicant, as operator with a disclaimer, then this would reasonably need to get involved.
Even after the presentation of the plaintiff to the happening of the accident on the kart track, it is likely to miss such a weighty rule violation by the defendant.
In any case is not proven such. For even the details of the witness T assumed to be correct, could the defendant be at best accused of being addressed, the sharp left bend too far inside and did not consider that the moving front of her witness I in the further course of the curve again with his vehicle on come inside, she would then be so in the roadway. But this would be a simple violation of the defendant's objections to the karting track rules to be observed before (cf. OLG Düsseldorf, Judgement of 14.11.2003, Az I-22 U 69/02, Juris quoted in para. 58).
Not even a clear overtaking the defendant is to be noted, moreover, would have meant the only simple rule violation. Rather, it has also in this constellation, an absolutely typical risk of driving event realized on a kart track (cf. BGH NJW 2003, 2018-2020, Juris quoted in para. 27). Even with sportlerischen rides a pleasure it is the rule that a driver attempted to test his skill and / or exploit the capacity of his vehicle, to achieve maximum speed, and either close ascends to vehicles ahead or to pass such an attempt ( Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, NJW-RR 1997, 408-409, Juris quoted in para. 9). Therefore, a special embossed by the nature of sport to create scale, which has not been assessed for any slight impairment of another athlete as negligent within the meaning of § 276 BGB, but a liability only for violations generally considered obese.
Witness D testified that he had observed outside standing, that the witness was approached I the strong left-hander at the end of the outside, the defendant contrast inside and witness I when driving into the curve, the GoKart touched the defendant. It was only the second time round "improved" his data as meaning that the defendant was wheeled into the witness of the Go-Kart I. Already hereafter
can be assumed that the accident possibly by a
simple indiscretion caused the defendant
has been. In addition, the accuracy of the information of the witness is subject to certain T concerns.
For one was with him to recognize a significant trend in favor of his employer
to testify. To recognize this was particularly the fact that his initial version of the
Collision was trying to correct. Second, the witness confirmed that I indicate the applicant, the supervisor was standing at the time of the accident at the start of the indoor area. Should this be the case, is very unlikely that the witness may have T from the process itself seen anything. Because the interior is a sight on the outer layer only through the two gates and restricted because of the distance. Ultimately, however, this may therefore be left open, because there is already a weighty rule violation is not reported it, so that was unnecessary, the hearing of other witnesses named by the defendant.
Wednesday 30 November 2011
compensation claims for accidents
This site is going to be about compensation claims for accidents, for which you may need legal advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)