Court judgment: Who is liable on the motorway in the event of a rear -end collision?

Court judgment: Who is liable on the motorway in the event of a rear -end collision?

In a current decision by the Higher Regional Court Hesse (Az. 9 U 5/24) for a rear -end collision on a two -lane motorway, the court has clarified important aspects of the liability of the accidents. In the incident, the plaintiff, André Angerbach, drove behind a vehicle in front, whose driver abruptly changed track and suddenly slowed down. As a result of this driving style, Angerbach drove into the rear of the in front, with a total damage of almost 60,000 euros.

The court found that the apparent evidence in the accident did not apply. The driver in front did not pay attention to the traffic and failed to flash in time. Although the drivers who had a complicity, since he had to expect the possibility of an abrupt brake, the liability was distributed to both drivers.

liability in the event of a rear -end collision

In the legal assessment of the incident, the apparent evidence initially applies to the disadvantage of the drivers. The latter must prove that he has complied with all the necessary safety precautions or that special circumstances that justify another evaluation. The circumstances mentioned include the abrupt braking of the in front or a non -proper change of lane, as can be seen from the explanations of the traffic lexicon. The apparent evidence can be omitted if there is controversial whether it was actually opened to a vehicle or possibly reversing the in front.

These basics are of great importance in the case of rear -end collisions, since it transfers the presumption of fault to the parties involved in the accident. According to the OLG Dresden, the apparent evidence rules even speak against those traveling in almost all cases of rear -end collisions. An exception are constellations such as collisions with left -wing turners, where the assumptions can remove.

judicial decisions on school meals and travel law

Another significant case comes from the Düsseldorf District Court (Az. 22 O 131/24), where a man sued the termination of a travel contract without notice. He had supposedly urinated in a glass at the bar of a cruise ship and put it back on it. The plaintiff was given a on -board reference; However, the courts decided that this incident is not a serious breach of duty. Thus, the termination without notice was declared inadmissible without prior warning and the man received the travel price for the unused days and travel expenses in the amount of 4,300 euros.

Overall, these cases throw a light on the complexity of legal decisions in Germany, which affect both traffic accidents and school and travel law. For those affected, it is important to know the respective regulations and judgments in order to be able to effectively enforce their rights.

Further information on the legal basics for rear -end collisions and numerous relevant judgments can be found in Verkehrlexikon , while specific decisions on the mentioned cases mdr more detailed.