stvg-haftungspruefung

/verkehrsrecht:stvg-haftungspruefung

Purpose

The skill reviews the accident victim's claims against the owner (Section 7 StVG), the driver (Section 18 StVG) and the compulsory insurer (Section 115 VVG) as well as the apportionment under Section 17 StVG where several motor vehicles are involved. It quantifies the recoverable damage (repair vs. total loss, 130% threshold, loss of use, rental car, pain and suffering) and provides a litigation-ready apportionment argument for the typical constellations (rear-end collision, lane change, right-of-way violation).

Inputs

Accident location, time, weather, visibility conditions
Vehicles involved (owner, driver, registration, compulsory insurer)
Description of the course of events by both sides (if applicable, police report)
Damage pattern (repair costs gross/net, replacement value, salvage value, expert opinion)
Personal injuries (type of injury, duration of medical treatment, incapacity for work)
Previous correspondence with the insurer

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides StVG, BGB law on damages, BGH VI ZS case law on apportionment and heads of damage as well as Hentschel/König/Dauer and Geigel citations. Drafter prepares a liability opinion in opinion style with apportionment, damage item and demand letter to the compulsory insurer. Reviewer checks the apportionment scheme, the 130% threshold, limitation (Sections 195, 199 BGB; Section 14 StVG) and the amount of pain and suffering.

Procedure

1. Bases of claim

Canonical order:

Section 7(1) StVG – strict liability of the owner "in the operation" of a motor vehicle. The "in the operation" standard is broad (BGH line: any danger triggered by the vehicle in road traffic) [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris].
Section 7(2) StVG – exclusion of liability only in the case of force majeure (to be construed narrowly; neither an unavoidable event within the meaning of Section 17(3) StVG nor gross contributory negligence on the part of the injured party is sufficient).
Section 18(1) StVG – driver's liability with a presumption of fault; exculpation by proving absence of fault.
Section 823(1) BGB and Section 823(2) BGB in conjunction with the relevant StVO provision (e.g. Section 4(1) StVO as a protective law).
Section 115(1) sentence 1 no. 1 VVG – direct claim against the compulsory insurer.

2. Apportionment Section 17 StVG where several motor vehicles are involved

Standard under Section 17(1), (2) StVG: weighing of causal contributions; operating risk on both sides is basic equipment of every motor vehicle. An "unavoidable event" within the meaning of Section 17(3) StVG excludes liability vis-à-vis the co-owner, but is rare (standard: conduct of an ideal driver).

Typical schemes from the case law of the Higher Regional Courts [unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/Beck-Online]:

Constellation	Tendential apportionment (tortfeasor : injured party)
Rear-end collision (no braking manoeuvre by the vehicle ahead without reason)	100 : 0 to the detriment of the rear-ending party — prima facie evidence (BGH, judgment of 13.12.2011 – VI ZR 177/10) `[unverifiziert]`
Lane change with collision (§ 7 V StVO)	75–100 : 0–25 to the detriment of the lane changer — prima facie evidence
Failure to yield (§ 8 StVO)	100 : 0 to the detriment of the party required to wait, provided there is no contributory fault on the part of the party with the right of way
Breaches of the duty of care on both sides (e.g., inattentive pulling away)	50 : 50

Important: The table does not replace subsumption in the individual case.

3. Contributory negligence § 9 StVG in conjunction with § 254 BGB

Contributory negligence on the part of the injured party (e.g., failure to wear a seatbelt, excessive speed) reduces the compensation claim accordingly. Standard: § 254 BGB. For the occurrence of damage and amount must be examined separately (in particular the duty to mitigate damage).

4. Heads of damage §§ 249–254 BGB

Property damage:

Repair (restitution in kind § 249 II BGB): gross only in the case of actual repair; otherwise net.
130% threshold: Repair costs up to 130% of the replacement value (= RCV less salvage value) are reimbursable if the injured party actually has the vehicle repaired and continues to use it for at least 6 months (BGH, settled case law, inter alia BGH, judgment of 23.05.2017 – VI ZR 9/17, NJW 2017, 2401 [unverifiziert – prüfen]).
Total loss above 130%: replacement cost (RCV – salvage value).
Expert costs as part of the damage, insofar as necessary (§ 249 II BGB).
Workshop risk: An excessive workshop invoice may remain with the tortfeasor (BGH, judgment of 16.01.2024 – VI ZR 38/22 inter alia, NJW 2024, … [unverifiziert – Aktenzeichen prüfen]).
Rental car costs at the normal rate (plus accident-specific additional costs, if applicable Schwacke or Fraunhofer list).
Loss of use instead of a rental car, if the injured party can manage without a replacement vehicle (Sanden/Danner/Küppersbusch table).
Diminished value for newer vehicles with considerable repair scope.

Personal injury:

Medical treatment costs, loss of earnings, household management damage.
Pain and suffering compensation § 11 StVG in conjunction with § 253 II BGB; assessed according to severity, duration, consequences (pain and suffering tables Hacks/Wellner/Häcker as a guideline value, [unverifiziert – prüfen]).

5. Limitation period

§ 14 StVG: 3 years from knowledge (§§ 195, 199 BGB parallelism); suspension by negotiations with the insurer (§ 203 BGB) and by pending legal proceedings.

6. Letter of claim to the compulsory insurer

Schedule of damages (property damage, personal injury) with evidence.
Proposed apportionment with reasons.
Setting of a deadline for settlement (as a rule 4–6 weeks from submission of the expert report; occurrence of default § 286 BGB).

Sources and citation style

Mandatory: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statutes

§ 7 StVG (registered keeper liability)
§ 9 StVG (contributory negligence)
§ 11 StVG (non-material damage)
§ 17 StVG (balancing of multiple vehicle owners)
§ 18 StVG (driver liability)
§ 823 BGB
§ 249 BGB (restitution in kind, monetary compensation)
§ 253 BGB (non-material damage)
§ 254 BGB (contributory negligence)
§ 115 VVG (direct claim)
PflVG (Compulsory Insurance Act)
§ 1 StVO; § 4 StVO; § 7 StVO; § 8 StVO

Commentaries

König, in: Hentschel/König/Dauer, Straßenverkehrsrecht, 47th ed. 2023, § 7 StVG marginal no. 1 et seq., § 17 StVG marginal no. 1 et seq.
Heß, in: Burmann/Heß/Hühnermann/Jahnke, Straßenverkehrsrecht, 28th ed. 2024, § 7 StVG marginal no. 1 et seq.
Greger/Zwickel, Haftungsrecht des Straßenverkehrs, 6th ed. 2021, ch. 3 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Geigel, Der Haftpflichtprozess, 28th ed. 2020, ch. 25 marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in juris/Beck-Online]`)

BGH, judgment of 13.12.2011 – VI ZR 177/10, NJW 2012, 608 (prima facie evidence of rear-end collision)
BGH, judgment of 23.05.2017 – VI ZR 9/17, NJW 2017, 2401 (130% limit, continued use)
BGH, judgment of 16.01.2024 – VI ZR 38/22 et al. (workshop risk)
BGH, judgment of 11.11.2014 – VI ZR 76/13, NJW 2015, 233 (mitigation of damage, rental car costs)
OLG Hamm, judgment of 23.02.2018 – 9 U 124/17 (apportionment, lane change)

Output format

HAFTUNGSGUTACHTEN — Verkehrsunfall
Unfall: <Datum, Ort, beteiligte KfZ>

I.   Sachverhalt
II.  Frage(n)
III. Kurzantwort
     – Haftungsquote: <Schädiger> : <Geschädigter>
     – Ersatzanspruch dem Grunde nach: [ja / nein / quotal]

IV.  Rechtliche Bewertung
     1. Anspruch aus § 7 I StVG (Halterhaftung)
        a) „Bei Betrieb"
        b) Haftungsausschluss § 7 II StVG?
     2. Anspruch aus § 18 I StVG (Fahrerhaftung)
        Entlastungsbeweis?
     3. Anspruch aus § 823 I, II BGB
     4. Direktanspruch § 115 VVG
     5. Quotelung § 17 StVG
        a) Verursachungsbeiträge
        b) Beidseitige Betriebsgefahr
        c) Unabwendbares Ereignis § 17 III StVG?
     6. Mitverschulden § 9 StVG iVm § 254 BGB
     7. Schaden
        a) Sachschaden (Reparatur / 130% / WBA / Restwert)
        b) Nutzungsausfall / Mietwagen
        c) Sachverständigenkosten / Wertminderung / Werkstattrisiko
        d) Personenschaden (Heilbehandlung, Verdienstausfall, Haushalt)
        e) Schmerzensgeld § 11 StVG iVm § 253 II BGB

V.   Risiken / offene Punkte
     🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>

VI.  Forderungsschreiben (Entwurf)
     – Quote, Schadenshöhe, Fristsetzung § 286 BGB

VII. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (excerpt, expert opinion style)

III. Brief answer. Client (driver 1, rear-ending driver) is liable to the driver ahead (driver 2) as to the merits 100% under §§ 7 I, 18 I StVG in conjunction with § 115 I 1 no. 1 VVG; a factual contribution by the driver ahead that would alter the apportionment in favor of driver 1 is not apparent from the file.

IV.5. Apportionment § 17 StVG. In the case of a rear-end collision, prima facie evidence speaks against the rear-ending driver (BGH, judgment of 13.12.2011 – VI ZR 177/10 [unverifiziert – prüfen]). This can only be rebutted by proving an atypical course of events, such as the driver ahead braking hard for no reason. Such an atypicality is not apparent, since the driver ahead braked due to traffic conditions in front of a traffic light. Liability therefore remains with driver 1.

Risks / typical mistakes

Flat-rate apportionment without subsumption. Apportionment schemes are guideline values, not the result of subsumption.
130% limit without proof of continued use claimed — the BGH requires actual repair and at least 6 months of continued use.
Workshop invoice submitted without review — duty to mitigate damage § 254 II BGB; but the workshop risk generally remains with the tortfeasor.
Direct claim § 115 VVG overlooked — separate action against insurer and owner required (compulsory joint litigation).
Limitation § 14 StVG / §§ 195, 199 BGB forgotten; suspension through negotiations § 203 BGB not documented.
Contributory negligence, seat belt overlooked — a typical reason for reducing the quota in cases of personal injury.