Principle of the unit of damage
The principle of unit of damage describes the case law practice of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) with regard to the limitation of claims for damages .
Statements of the principle
According to this, the start of the limitation period for the first damage resulting from a damaging act is also decisive for the limitation period for all other foreseeable damage resulting from the same damaging act, even if they do not occur until many years later and initially do not lead to any concrete loss of assets for the injured party. The Federal Court of Justice has consistently ruled that the individual items of damage (in the case of a traffic accident, for example, a distinction could be made between property damage and personal injury; personal injury can include healing costs , compensation for pain and suffering, compensation for loss of earnings or reduced earning capacity or even funeral costs Include survivor's pension) are only dependent invoice items with a uniform claim for damages; an unlawful act therefore only leads to a uniform claim for damages.
Start of the statute of limitations
The start of the regular three-year limitation period basically requires that the obligee can assert his claim against the debtor by way of an action for performance . Accordingly, the Civil Code formulates in Section 199 (1) BGB that the regular limitation period begins at the end of the year in which the claim arose and the creditor becomes aware of the circumstances giving rise to the claim and the person of the debtor, or without gross negligence would have to achieve. The judicial assertion of the damage that occurred initially is not subject to any restrictions, because the obligee can demand compensation from the injuring party for his suffered loss of assets by way of an action for performance. If a performance judgment is made in favor of the obligee in this process, this also leads to the thirty-year limitation period applicable to legally established claims ( Section 197 (1) No. 3 BGB). For future damage that has not yet led to a specific loss of assets, the later occurrence of which is predictable but by no means certain, there is also a threat of limitation in four years at the latest because of the "damage unit" with the damage that has already occurred. In this case, the injured party does not have the right to claim for benefits, because this would require that the injured party could already demand performance from the injuring party due to the future damage, i.e. the claim for damages is already due .
Action for a declaratory judgment regarding foreseeable future damage
The way out of the dilemma of the impending statute of limitations without the corresponding possibility of a performance suit is indicated by the case law with the declaratory action ( Section 256 (1) ZPO ), in which the injured party seeks the determination that the injuring party is obliged to give the injured party everyone in the future due to the injuring party Action to compensate for the damage. The case law attaches the importance of a legally established claim to this determination, to which the thirty-year limitation period of Section 197 (1) No. 3 BGB applies.
Independent limitation of unpredictable late damage
Unforeseeable damage is excluded from the "bracketing effect" of the damage unit. In this case, the case law gives the injured party the benefit of initially being unable to see any reason for a declaratory action if, for example, he initially incorrectly assumed that he had only suffered a very slight temporary injury, which then takes a chronic course. For unforeseeable damage, the limitation period therefore begins to run independently at the point in time at which the requirements of Section 199 (1) BGB are met. However, the case law advocates an objectified standard of predictability that does not take into account the skills and knowledge of the individual injured party. In the case of physical injury in particular, the BGH regularly takes the view of the respective medical specialist groups and thus applies the strictest conceivable standard.
history
The principle of unity of damage was developed by the Reichsgericht (RG) at the beginning of the 20th century and was designated as permanent jurisdiction there from 1913 at the latest. However, the basis of the longer development of the principle already lies in a judgment of the Prussian Higher Tribunal Court from 1846. The Federal Court of Justice has adopted the case law of the Reich Court largely unchanged.
criticism
The principle of unit damage is sometimes viewed critically in science. Legal and dogmatic considerations are in the foreground, substantive and procedural deficiencies in the practice of case law are pointed out and the practical benefit of the unit of damage is called into question.
Individual evidence
- ^ BGH, judgment of April 20, 1982 , Az. VI ZR 197/80, full text = VersR 1982, 703, 704.
- ↑ RG Warn 1913 No. 143.
- ^ Judgment of the Prussian Higher Tribunal Court, OTrE 13, 19.
literature
- Frank Peters , Knowledge of the damage as a statute of limitations under Section 852 (1) BGB, JZ 1981, pp. 121–125.
- That. , Comment on BGH, ruling. November 27, 1990 - Az. VI ZR 2/90, NZV 1991, pp. 143-145.
- Alexander Panier , The Principle of Unity of Damage, Frankfurt am Main 2009.
