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

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

In a recent decision by the Hesse Higher Regional Court (Az. 9 U 5/24) regarding a rear-end collision on a two-lane highway, the court clarified important aspects regarding the liability of those involved in the accident. During the incident, the plaintiff, André Angerbach, was driving behind a vehicle in front, whose driver abruptly changed lanes and suddenly braked. As a result of this driving style, Angerbach drove into the rear of the car in front, causing total damage of almost 60,000 euros.

The court found that prima facie evidence did not apply to the accident. The driver in front did not pay attention to the traffic and failed to signal in time. Although the rear-ending driver was partly to blame because he had to reckon with the possibility of sudden braking, the liability was shared between both drivers.

Liability in the event of a rear-end collision

In the legal assessment of the incident, the prima facie evidence is initially to the disadvantage of the rear-ending driver. This person must prove that he complied with all necessary safety precautions or that there were special circumstances that justify a different assessment. The circumstances mentioned include the driver in front braking abruptly or changing lanes improperly, as the explanations in the traffic lexicon show. In this case, prima facie evidence can be omitted if it is disputed whether a vehicle actually rear-ended or possibly the person in front was reversing.

These basics are of great importance in rear-end collisions, as they transfer the presumption of fault to the person involved in the accident who was involved in the rear-end collision. According to the Dresden Higher Regional Court, the prima facie rules of evidence even speak against the driver in almost all cases of rear-end collisions. An exception are constellations such as collisions with left-turners, where the assumptions can be canceled out.

Court decisions on school meals and travel law

Parallel to this decision, the Freiburg Administrative Court (Az. 2 K 1477/25) rejected an urgent application from the Metzgendorf family, who objected to their daughter's vegetarian school lunch. The parents feared that their daughter could become malnourished due to the limited meat supply at the all-day school. However, the court ruled that there was no impending nutritional deficiency and that the parents could also provide or bring other meals.

Another important case comes from the Düsseldorf Regional Court (Az. 22 O 131/24), where a man sued against the immediate termination of a travel contract. He allegedly urinated into a glass at the bar on a cruise ship and put it back. The plaintiff was expelled from the ship; However, the courts ruled that this incident did not constitute a serious breach of duty. The immediate termination without prior warning was therefore declared inadmissible and the man was reimbursed the travel price for the days not used as well as travel costs amounting to 4,300 euros.

Overall, these cases shed light on the complexity of legal decisions in Germany that affect both traffic accidents and school and travel law. It is important for those affected to know the relevant regulations and judgments in order to be able to effectively enforce their rights.

Those interested can find further information on the legal basis for rear-end collisions and numerous relevant judgments in Traffic lexicon, while specific decisions on the cases mentioned MDR be described in more detail.