Hondafall
The Hondafall (keyword: motorcycle handlebar fairing ; also Hondaurteil ) is one of the VI. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice on December 9, 1986 decided case on producer liability . The peculiarity of the case is that the BGH ruled that product monitoring obligations also extend to accessories produced by third parties.
facts
The plaintiff's son had a fatal accident on a Honda motorcycle at high speed. The previous owner had installed a handlebar cover that was not from Honda. This made the motorcycle unstable and ultimately caused the accident. The defendants (Honda and importer) were accused of failing to warn the customer of the dangers posed by the handlebar fairing in good time.
judgment
The lower court had limited liability from the manufacturer's observation obligations to accessories that he himself recommended. The BGH went beyond that, because it extended this duty of safety to common accessories, primarily if it has attached devices such as eyelets to the motorcycle for accessories and the main product is subject to marginal safety expectations of the user. In such cases, the product monitoring obligation indicates an obligation to pass on warnings. A culpable violation of the warning obligations could result in liability for damages according to § 823 paragraph 1 BGB . The BGH also pointed out, however, that the manufacturer of the accessories could be hit hard under competition law because at least his rights to the established and operated business would be interfered with.
See also
Case law on producer liability:
Individual evidence
- ↑ limited preview in the Google book search
- ↑ BGHZ 99, 167-181 (judgment of December 9, 1986, Az .: VI ZR 65/86) = MDR 1987, 396-397 = NJW 1987, 1009-1012 = VersR 1987, 312-315
- ↑ Dangerous commuting. Der Spiegel, February 23, 1987, accessed July 19, 2017 .
- ^ A b Dieter Medicus : Civil law . 19th edition Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2002, ISBN 3-452-24982-4 , § 25 II.
