Tort law (Germany)

The German tort law , also known as the law of unlawful acts , is regulated in Sections 823 to 853 of the German Civil Code (BGB). It justifies claims for damages under civil law . They come into consideration if there is no contractual relationship between the parties involved or if there is no conflict. If one of the elements of tort law is met, a statutory obligation arises . The injured party can keep himself harmless from the polluter using the standardized basis for claims . The regulations of the BGB are supplemented by numerous special laws, such as the Road Traffic Act (StVG) and the Product Liability Act (ProdHaftG) based on a European directive .

In terms of content, tort law regulates compensation for damage resulting from the violation of legal interests , absolute rights and protective laws . The law distinguishes between three forms of liability: liability from "culpable injustice", liability from "injustice in rebuttable suspected culpability" and strict liability from " endangerment ".

Furthermore, tort law pursues preventive purposes by preventing acts of harm by threatening to pay damages. In contrast to Anglo-American law , however, it does not have a criminal function . Therefore, the German tort law is basically alien to claims for damages that are intended to sanction the perpetrator . This does not affect criminal law provisions.

Basics of German tort law

Tort law regulates the conditions under which a damaging party is liable for damage caused by him. In contrast to contract law , in which compensation for damages is treated as a legal consequence , a tortious claim for compensation arises regularly by virtue of the law and when someone damages another in an attributable and unlawful manner. Contract claims can collide with tort claims, so that it is questionable what effects this will have on the " statute of limitations " or "liability mitigation" , which is usually shorter in contract law . In the statute of limitations, the case law is inconsistent: the Federal Court of Justice gives the regulations from § 548 BGB under tenancy law priority, because tort claims would almost always be in competition with it and suppression of the norm would mean the erosion of § 548 BGB. On the other hand, he often gives the regulations on workmanship or commercial defects subordinate, because they would lead to property infringements much less often. In this respect, the different treatment follows a statistical frequency of the competition question, which, depending on the rash, suppresses tortious claims. In contrast, the jurisprudence clearly takes a position on the relationship to contractual liability mitigation: Statutory privileges immediately take precedence over protection from unlawful acts, but contractually agreed privileges do not.

The law of tort is fundamentally based on the principle of fault. Therefore, tortious liability generally presupposes that the damaging party acts culpably , i.e. willfully or negligently . Strict liability is an exception to the principle of fault. There, liability is linked to responsibility for a person or thing. Typically, it correlates with a particular risk tendency due to an increased accident probability. This form of liability is widespread, for example, in motor vehicle and aircraft traffic, as well as for pharmaceuticals .

German tort law is rooted in the Roman Republican lex Aquilia . This law, which was the first of all plebiscites during the Roman Republic , obliged those who illegally and culpably damaged a foreign object to pay damages. The lex Aquilia influenced the development of some European liability systems, such as the French and Austrian . These legal systems are characterized by the fact that a general clause forms the center , i.e. a broad basis for claims that makes low demands on the creation of a claim. For example, Art. 1240 of the French Civil Code obliges anyone who causes damage through any act to compensate. Due to its extremely general wording, this standard leaves its users extremely flexible.

The introduction of a comparable tortious general clause was discussed in the context of the development of the BGB, but ultimately rejected in order to avoid excessive liability. However, there was also a legal political consideration behind this: Liability for damages should not be left to the discretion of the judge appointed to interpret it, but rather emerge from a clearly defined legal assessment. In the end, the legislature deliberately created a number of bases for claims so that the perpetrator's different behavior could be linked. The focus is on the comparatively broad § 823 BGB and § 826 BGB. Nonetheless, there is a clear difference between Section 823 (1) BGB and Section 826 BGB within the basis of tortious claims: While Section 823 (1) BGB is very narrow in the objective factual situation, in that it is linked to the violation of certain legal interests, it is on the subjective level of the facts Broadly, as every fault creates liability. In contrast to this, § 826 BGB is subjectively narrowly drafted and can only be sanctioned with intent, but it is very broad at the objective factual level, because property is protected by the norm. In between there is § 823 Paragraph 2 BGB, whose objective and subjective factual requirements are based on the Protection Act and only flank its requirements with a claim for damages.

The tort law regulated in the BGB has only undergone a few changes since the BGB came into force in 1900. The further development of the field of law is therefore largely carried out through case law . This applies in particular to the protection of personal rights and the law of doctor's liability . In addition, however, there were special laws containing the basis for tortious claims. These include the Road Traffic Act, the Atomic Energy Act (AtG) and the Product Liability Act.

Liability for injustice caused

Violation of legal interests and absolute rights (subjective rights), Section 823 (1) BGB

(1) Anyone who intentionally or negligently violates the life, body, health, freedom, property or any other right of another person is obliged to compensate the other person for the resulting damage.

The key norm of German tort law is Section 823 (1) BGB. This grants a right to compensation if someone unlawfully and culpably violates one of the mentioned protected assets and thereby causes damage.

Since the German legislature, with Section 823 (1) BGB, did not want to create a general clause establishing liability, it linked the creation of a claim for damages to the damage to a legal asset named in the standard. Pure financial losses, for example, are therefore not eligible for compensation via Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) , since the standard does not name property as a protected property.

The group of legal interests protected in Section 823 (1) BGB includes life, body, health and freedom. These are goods that every person naturally has. They are therefore also referred to as the goods of life in law.

Life

An act of harm against life is killing. However, this does not establish any liability towards the injured party under Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), since the person loses his or her legal capacity at the time of death , so that no claim can be made. The injuring party is, however, liable to the surviving dependents; however, these claims are regulated in a different basis than Section 823 (1) BGB. For example, Section 844 of the German Civil Code grants a claim against the injuring party for reimbursement of funeral costs and for payment of reasonable compensation . In the context of § 823 BGB, the legal asset of life therefore has no scope of its own, but is nevertheless mentioned as a protected asset. In this way, the legislature expresses that human life is not a legal asset that is available.

body and health

The objects of protection of body and health are closely related: While the former focuses on protecting the external physical integrity of people, the latter protects their physical, mental and emotional functionality. The physical integrity is violated, for example, by the addition of a wound, cutting off the hair, the wrongful omission medical treatment as well as the entry of an unwanted pregnancy after failed sterilization . In principle, medical interventions and operations are also considered to be interference with the physical integrity, unless the justification for professional treatment can not be proven.

A health injury is, for example, infecting a person with a disease and introducing harmful emissions . Psychological impairment that reduces well-being can also constitute a health hazard. However, since this is difficult to measure and verify, such an impairment only constitutes a violation of legal interests if it has a physical effect, for example in the form of a stroke or depression .

The health of an unborn child can also be damaged. This happens, for example, when a pregnant woman is given a blood supply contaminated with syphilis , as a result of which the child is born sick. The situation is different if the accusation to the doctor is limited to not having pointed out to the pregnant woman that a child would be born sick: Here the child does not suffer any deterioration in its health, which is why it has no claim for compensation. At most, the doctor may be liable to the parents for breach of a contractual duty to provide information. A tortious liability of the doctor for reimbursement of child maintenance comes into consideration according to the case law if he performs a sterilization incorrectly so that a child is born.

freedom

According to the prevailing view, freedom as a legal asset only protects physical freedom of movement. Injured it is therefore by restrictions of movement freedom, such as by obtaining an over several months detention . However, short-term restrictions on freedom, such as blocking the path or parking, are not sufficient, since such circumstances are associated with the general risk to life.

The physical freedom of movement can also be impaired by necessary interventions in the free will, for example through coercion, threats or deception. This presupposes that the will formation to move freely is impaired. If this effect is missing, the interference with the freedom of will as a violation of personal rights or as a punishable coercion ( Section 240 StGB) can justify claims for damages in tort.

Absolute rights

property

Furthermore, § 823 paragraph 1 BGB protects so-called absolute rights . An absolute right is a right to rule over a certain legal position, which everyone must respect. The best-known absolute right is property , which, in accordance with Section 903 of the German Civil Code, represents unrestricted legal power over a thing.

Acts of violation consist of interfering with the substance of an object, i.e. damaging or destroying it. The removal or impairment of use or impairment of the intended use of the item are also infringements of property. In this sense, parking a car and unauthorized occupation of a third-party parking space represent a violation of property. Likewise, cutting off the supply of a substance with which a unit must be permanently supplied, for example by interrupting the power supply to an ice cream factory or hatchery and their products be damaged as a result of the insufficient power supply. The case law also regards the photographing of third-party building facades as an impairment of property if the photographer enters the third-party property to take the picture without the consent of the owner, because entering the property's control over his property is interfered with.

According to case law, there is also an infringement of property if a thing is transferred that is damaged after transfer due to a defect . This applies, for example, if a newly acquired car suffers an accident due to a gas cable that was defective when it was handed over to the buyer. The effective disposal of an unauthorized person is also regarded as a violation of property rights .

Other rights

Other absolute rights are covered by Section 823 (1) BGB with the concept of other law . This includes all limited real rights , for example the land charge and the mortgage , as well as the expectant rights . If someone damages something that is encumbered with such a right, the holder of this right can claim damages.

The predominant view is that the right of possession is also protected as the right to exercise actual power over a thing. Critical voices object that tortious property protection would be equated with property protection and, in case of doubt, even go beyond it. In addition, there is a risk of collisions with § 858 BGB as a protection law within the meaning of § 823 paragraph 2 BGB.

There is broad consensus in the literature and case law that claims as merely relative rights do not represent other rights. However, individual voices consider the claim jurisdiction, which expresses the affiliation of a claim to its creditor, as other right. To view more absolute rights is in intellectual property , the intellectual property protection on the patent , copyright and trademark law enjoy including the inventor of personal rights .

General personal rights

The concept of other law also includes a position that can be traced back to judicial legal training : the general right of personality within the meaning of Article 2 (1) of the Basic Law . The recognition of the general right of personality as protected property of § 823 BGB is subject to recent developments. The right of people to respect and recognition as well as free development of their personality is protected. In this way, the protection of honor, which is neglected in the BGB - in contrast to the StGB - is strengthened and, furthermore , even the privacy is included in the area of ​​protection. It constitutes a violation of legal rights if photos are published without the consent of the person depicted, especially if the images are also used for commercial purposes, for example to promote potency drugs . Most recently, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that there is a right not to know one's own genetic predisposition.

The problem is that the limitation of the scope of protection of the legal interest “personality” makes it necessary to weigh up interests and interests. If the protection of one person is guaranteed, the protection of another person is usually hindered. Assets, not personally bound components of the right of personality, enjoy post-mortem protection. Ideal and highly personal elements of the protection of personality are not inheritable.

Right to the established and exercised commercial enterprise

The right to the established and exercised commercial enterprise also arose on the basis of judicial law and, like the general personal right with regard to § 823 BGB, is of subsidiary nature as soon as a special law takes effect. The right to a commercial enterprise protects the functionality of an enterprise as an economic unit. Recognized in jurisprudence for a long time, its protection is now subject to severe restrictions, especially since in a highly competitive society its existence for customers, sales and earning potential cannot be protected like property, but instead has to constantly assert itself anew. For this reason, the commercial enterprise does not experience grandfathering in the actual sense, rather it is protected against certain business-damaging behavior directed against it and thus against business damage. This can be unauthorized labor disputes internally, as well as unfair competition externally. Such cases were judged: unjustified warnings because of an alleged infringement of property rights , industrial action and calls for boycotts .

marriage

The tortious protection of marriage is already highly controversial in the case law. On the one hand, the Federal Court of Justice expressly recognized the spatial and objective area of ​​marriage as an absolutely protected legal position. For example, the wife has a right to removal and injunctive relief against her unfaithful husband against the admission of his lover into the marital home. On the other hand, the Federal Court denied in settled case-law tort claims for damages from marriage injuries. He argues that family law already finally regulates property issues of marriage and third parties (here: beloved) cannot violate the marital fiduciary duty, since this only binds the spouse. However, the Federal Court of Justice granted a claim for damages in a case in which the wife had pretended to her husband before the marriage that he alone was the father of the expected child, because this would be a premarital deception beyond the violation of marital fidelity.

Marriage itself is not an absolute right comparable to property and therefore ultimately not an “other right”. According to a highly controversial view represented in the teaching, “the connection of the spouse to sexual fidelity” is also absolutely protected, which justifies an analogous application of Section 823 (1). Any third party who, as a result of a violation, has to replace the settlement interest, is a potential violator , comparable to the settlement of an engagement according to § 1298 BGB.

Club membership

In 1990 the Federal Court of Justice ruled that membership as "other right" can deserve protection. In the "Schärenkreuzer case", a member of a registered sailing club was denied participation in a Lake Constance regatta because the sailing ship did not comply with the regulations, whereupon the member filed a claim for damages. In the literature, the subsumption of club membership under the protection of § 823 BGB is viewed as doubtful.

Infringing act

Anyone who causes a violation of legal interests directly through their own actions is a criminal offense. An action can positively act or with appropriate guarantee for the return to his obligations omission made. Anyone who hits and injures someone will be held accountable just as much as the father who does not help his child out of the ice water while skating after it has broken in. For behavior to be legally reproachable in this context, it must correspond to the unworthiness of positive action .

Establishing liability is more difficult in the case of only indirect damage, for example through the sale of a product that causes damage to the user. It is questionable how far a person's responsibility for the damage that has occurred should extend and to what extent an act that is generally hardly disapproving (placing the product on the market) should justify tortious liability. In order to be able to answer the underlying question of causality for tortious liability in a more targeted manner, the figure of the duty to maintain safety was developed. Their dogmatic derivation is controversial, but the views that are mostly represented largely agree on questions of the function and the requirements of this type of duty.

The traffic safety obligation triggers a legal obligation to act. Failure to comply can result in tort liability. An obligation to act in this sense is incumbent on persons who create sources of danger. The jurisprudence always assumes this in the case of operators of construction sites or organizers of concerts and the like. By opening traffic areas, which by their nature contain potential hazards, it must be ensured that third parties who come into contact with the site as visitors or for other reasons are not harmed. Otherwise, the operator must pay the injured person concerned compensation in accordance with Section 823 (1) BGB. Road safety obligations also apply in smaller dimensions. The owner of a house has to ensure that paths to and from his property are safely accessible. If he does not clear his way after snowfall, he is liable for damages if as a result passers-by slip and are injured. A similar duty of care is subject to people who, due to their professional position, have particular confidence. For example, doctors are liable for damage to the body and health of their patients that occurs due to the failure of therapeutic treatment that is clearly indicated from a specialist disciplinary point of view.

In the context of traffic obligations, it is often difficult and even more difficult to distinguish between “acting through omission” and “indirect positive action”, which systematic position these two modalities should take in the relationship between the facts and the illegality. Ultimately, the decisive factor is evidence of the illegality of the infringing act in the case of the life and legal goods mentioned in Section 823 (1) BGB. In this respect, the otherwise customary reference to the adequacy to indicate unlawful fulfillment of the facts is not sufficient.

Causality and imputability

→ Main article : causality (law)

Liability for damages requires that the tortious behavior was the cause of the impairment of the legal interest, i.e. that it is causally linked to it as a liability. This is the case when the act of the infringer cannot be ignored without the success in its concrete form being lost (so-called conditio sine qua non ). If an omission is the subject of a dispute, it depends on whether the perpetrator could have prevented the violation of legal interests by acting in accordance with his duties with a probability bordering on certainty. To this extent, the legal literature speaks of equivalent causality .

This extraordinarily broad causality formula is restricted in several ways: On the one hand, those causal processes are excluded from liability that are unpredictable, i.e. run in a way that simply no one can expect. On the other hand, it is required that the infringement of the legal interest can be objectively attributed to the infringer (so-called adequate causality ). Adequacy means a condition that was generally suitable to bring about an undesirable success. This is to be distinguished from extraordinary circumstances that bring about success; these are not subject to adequacy. According to case law, the point of view of assessing the situation should be from the perspective of an optimally prepared observer with special knowledge of the perpetrator at the time of the injury. Such cases often exist when the perpetrator creates a legally disapproved danger that (later) realizes in the success that has occurred.

However, the result of the crime may not be imputable if the violation of legal interests is caused directly by the victim. This is the case, for example, when a ticket inspector pursues a fugitive fare dodger and falls in the process. In such challenging cases, however, the case law affirms the attribution of the violation of the legal interest, as long as the self-endangerment of the persecutor results from a consideration that is at the beginning and is not disproportionate to the intended purpose. These are cases of so-called indirect-cumulative (also psychological) causality.

illegality

→ Main article : illegality

In the legal literature it is often said that the illegality would be indicated by the realization of the offense. This means that a separate review of the question of illegality is only required where there are indications that the prerequisites for justification reasons exist. In order to be able to contradict the legal system in an unlawful manner, the damaging party must have caused the damage unlawfully; there must be no indications of a self-defense or justifying emergency act . Basically, it is assumed that the indication of illegality can also be derived from the fact that the question of attribution is already made at the factual level and in this respect shortens the scope of the need for review as an injustice feature. On the other hand, if one followed the “doctrine of wrongdoing”, which is sometimes represented in the literature, the unlawfulness of the act would always be positive. A classic example that the illegality is not simply indicated is the act of infringement by a fugitive thief so that he can be stopped.

In principle, the positive determination of illegality is required in the event of a violation of the general right of personality and the right to the established and exercised commercial enterprise. Both rights each have an extremely broad area of ​​protection, which is why they can even be impaired by actions that are not fundamentally disapproved of by the legal system. In the case of personal rights, this is the case, for example, through negative reporting related to the person concerned. A strike by the workforce comes into consideration when it comes to the right to operate a business. In contrast to a violation of property, for example, these acts themselves enjoy fundamental rights protection through the guarantee of freedom of expression ( Art. 5 GG) and freedom of association ( Art. 9 Paragraph 3 GG). Therefore, the illegality of encroachments on the rights of the individual and of the business enterprise must be determined by weighing up the interests affected on both sides.

fault

→ Main article : Fault

The infringer must have caused the damage, which primarily presupposes that the person is at fault within the meaning of §§ 827, 828 BGB. Fault is conceivable in the two forms of fault, deliberate or negligent action. There is intent when the injuring party at least approves of the violation of legal interests . According to Section 276 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB), negligence requires that normal due diligence is disregarded.

Fault capacity

Fault is excluded if the infringer is negligent when performing the infringing act. According to § 827 sentence 1 BGB, this is the case if he is in a pathological condition that excludes free self-determination. These include primarily mental illness and alcohol-related intoxication . However, according to § 827 sentence 2 BGB, the infringer is liable like a negligent agent if he himself causes the negligence by consuming alcohol or similar substances.

The culpability of minors is differentiated in § 828 BGB: up to the age of seven years they are not liable for tortious acts. From the age of seven they are liable if they are able to recognize the dangerousness of their actions. Something different applies to damage that is related to road traffic hazards: Minors can only be held liable from the age of ten, as younger children are usually overwhelmed with the correct assessment of road traffic situations. However, this does not apply if the damage is not due to excessive demands on the child caused by road traffic. This is the case, for example, if it hits a properly parked vehicle.

Modification of the burden of proof through case law

Basically, in civil proceedings, the injured party bears the burden of proof for proving all the requirements justifying the claim, including the fault of the injuring party. In certain situations, however, this is hardly possible for him because the necessary facts are unknown to him. In order to compensate for this, case law modified the burden of proof in certain areas in favor of the injured party.

Producer liability

→ Main article : Producer liability

There are considerable practical difficulties in demonstrating the manufacturer's liability for products that he has placed on the market. If the user of one of these products suffers damage as a result of its defectiveness and then claims against the manufacturer, he must prove that the manufacturer culpably caused the defectiveness of the product. Since the user usually has no insight into the manufacturer's production processes, he can hardly prove his fault.

Because of this difficulty, the case law developed producer liability, which can lead to a legally regulated reversal of the burden of proof with regard to fault . The injured party is relieved of the burden of extensive evidence, because it is assumed in his favor that the manufacturer is at fault. The burden of proof is basically distributed in such a way that the injured claimant has to prove questions about the violation of legal interests, the alleged defect in the item and the objective breach of duty that led to the damage (causality establishing and fulfilling liability) and the opposing party (manufacturer) on the on the other hand, that he is not in breach of duty, but in particular that he is not at fault (including organizational fault and exonerating evidence with regard to vicarious agents ). However, since the legal structure provides for a rebuttable presumption , the injuring party can provide counter-evidence.

The presumption of fault is linked to the violation of a manufacturer-specific traffic safety obligation. Traffic safety obligations exist in different stages of product development and marketing: They start with the planning of the product and extend to its manufacture, the instruction of the user about the safe handling of the product as well as the observation of the product after the market launch with regard to possibly existing defects . The legal (good) violation can result from planning, manufacturing, construction, instruction and product monitoring errors.

However, claims that can be derived directly from the contract have priority over producer liability. These are claims that result from the contract types of the special law of obligations from §§ 433 ff. BGB or even independent guarantee contracts or contracts with protective effect in favor of third parties . Claims from culpa in contrahendo or strict liability also have priority over producer liability .

Medical Liability

→ Main article : Doctor's liability (Germany)

The jurisprudence in medical liability law developed a similar simplification of evidence in favor of the injured party. The injured party can hardly oversee the often very complex medical treatments in terms of liability law, far more the doctor treating them. Here, too, the case law had gone over to answering questions about the allocation of the burden of proof in order to relieve the patient, who was clearly less knowledgeable. Gaps, for example in the documentation of the medical treatment, can lead to a reduction in the requirements for providing evidence for the injured party, as this must not be at the expense of the injured party. If the patient is also able to prove a gross treatment error, this already indicates the causality of the error for the damage.

Large parts of the judicial doctor's liability were codified by the legislature in early 2013 in the provisions on the treatment contract ( § 630a BGB - § 630h BGB) .

Legal consequence: damages

→ Main article : Damages

If the factual prerequisites of Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) are met, the injuring party is obliged to compensate for all damages that are causally attributable to the impairment of legal interests. Damage is understood to mean any involuntary loss of assets that results from the act of violation and the resulting adverse effects. The scope of the damage to be replaced is based on the general damage law regulations, § § 249 to § 254 BGB, modified however by the special features of § § 842 to § 850 BGB. The compensation is determined using the difference hypothesis: The actual situation is compared with a fictitious situation that would have existed if the damaging event had not occurred. The so-called liability-compliant causality must exist between the infringing act and the damage that has occurred, which means that the scope of protection of the standard must include the damage that has actually occurred - with regard to the person of the injured party and the material risk area. The difference determined determines the amount of damage and is to be reimbursed by the injuring party.

According to § 252 BGB, the obligation to pay compensation also includes a possible financial gain, the occurrence of which was prevented by the damage (lost profit). In certain cases, the injured party can also demand compensation for immaterial damage in accordance with Section 253 BGB . This is important, for example, as compensation for physical and health injuries as well as violations of general personal rights.

Compensation for damages according to Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) can ultimately also consist of a right to removal or omission. While the claim for damages serves to compensate for violations of legal interests that have occurred, the aim of the injunctive relief is to prevent such impairments from occurring. These can result directly from Section 823 of the German Civil Code (BGB), but also from a quasi-regulatory legal context in accordance with Section 1004 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB ) . The prerequisite for this is that continued impairment of the rights protected by Sections 823, 824 of the German Civil Code (BGB) threatens and the opposing party is a disruptor of action or condition , whereby the claimant is not subject to an obligation to tolerate the impairment, for example from the law, contract, official decision or consent . However, it should be noted that the defense against the impairment (removal) cannot go further than a claim for damages.

Violation of a protection law, § 823 paragraph 2 BGB

(2) The same obligation applies to anyone who violates a law intended to protect another. If, according to the content of the law, a violation of this is possible even through no fault, the obligation to pay compensation only applies in the case of fault.

Section 823 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) is relevant if someone causes damage by violating a protective law. Protective laws are legal norms that also serve at least to protect the rights and interests of the individual or a specific group of people. This includes legal norms in the material sense , but also customary law insofar as they contain rules or prohibitions . Since such laws are very numerous, the Federal Court of Justice also checks whether other regulations already sufficiently take into account the interests of the claimant that are worth protecting. The protective nature of § 858 BGB is particularly questioned . This is because it can collide with the limitation of property protection in Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), which has been imposed by case law. To avoid this, the character of § 858 BGB as a protective law may not go further than the property protection of § 823 paragraph 1 BGB itself. § 858 BGB serves primarily to maintain legal peace and not to protect the owner, especially not that of the unlawful owner .

Protective laws are primarily of a public or criminal law nature: In particular, the assessments of public safety or order are incorporated into civil law via Section 823 (2) BGB. For example, Section 3 of the StVO obliges the driver of a vehicle to drive at an appropriate speed. The regulation aims to protect the life, physical integrity and property of other road users. Exceeding the speed limit therefore obliges you to pay damages in accordance with § 823 Paragraph 2 BGB if an accident occurs and this is due to excessive speed.

Compared to Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), the provision of evidence in Section 823 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) is easier for the injured party: Instead of providing evidence of a culpable violation of legal interests, it is sufficient if the opponent of the claim has an objective violation of the violated protective standard, in the above-mentioned case, Section 3 of the StVO , proves.

Credit and earning loss, § 824 BGB

(1) Anyone who contradicts the truth claims or disseminates a fact that is likely to jeopardize the credit of another or to cause other disadvantages for his acquisition or advancement, has to compensate the other for the resulting damage even if he is untruthful does not know, but must know.

(2) A communication, the untruth of which is unknown to the notifying party, is not obliged to pay damages if he or the recipient of the communication has a legitimate interest in it.

§ 824 BGB protects business honor and assets. For this purpose, the standard justifies a claim for damages for those about whom false facts are alleged or disseminated that are likely to damage their economic reputation. The reputation damage is based on the objective tendency to bring about disadvantages for the credit, acquisition or advancement of the claimant. This applies, for example, to a statement that someone is “on the verge of bankruptcy ” or “is producing a poor quality product”.

The standard competes with Section 823 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB), since the behavior giving rise to liability is regularly punishable as defamation ( Section 186 of the German Criminal Code) and defamation ( Section 187 of the German Criminal Code). However, since both criminal norms do not cover the case in which someone negligently makes a false assertion of fact, the second commission for the development of the BGB created § 824 BGB in order to close a gap in protection.

Section 824 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) contains a ground for justification which , as an exception, justifies statements that are generally disapproving. The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if the recipient of the statement has a legitimate interest in the statement (perception of legitimate interests). This justification is of great practical importance when it comes to reporting in the media . The perception of a legitimate interest can only be considered, however, if the injuring party does not know that the allegation is untrue, since deliberate misleading does not deserve protection.

Provision on sexual acts, § 825 BGB

Anyone who appoints another person to undertake or tolerate sexual acts through deceit, threats or abuse of a dependent relationship is obliged to compensate him for the resulting damage.

The practical significance of § 825 BGB is extremely small, since the norm competes with the protection of general personal rights through § 823 paragraph 1 BGB. However, in the context of the second law amending the law on damages from 2002, the legislature waived the deletion of the norm in order not to create the impression that sexual self-determination is not being taken seriously.

Immoral intentional damage, § 826 BGB

Anyone who deliberately harms another in a manner that is contrary to common decency is obliged to compensate the other for the damage.

Like Section 823 (2) BGB, Section 826 BGB is not limited to specific legal interests, but provides comprehensive protection against the impairment of rights, legal interests and interests. The standard has a gap-closing function in that it covers cases in which, although neither a legal interest nor a protective law has been violated, the behavior of the perpetrator is still disapproving. In contrast to § 823 Paragraph 1 BGB, where the damage is only on the legal side of the norm and the fault does not need to relate to the occurrence or extent of the damage and in contrast to § 823 Paragraph 2 BGB, in which the damage also is outside of the fault, the damage must be included in § 826 BGB of fault (here means intent). Damages of all kinds and also financial losses are recorded . Due to this broad scope of application, the standard contains restrictive and narrow factual prerequisites: An essential prerequisite for a claim under § 826 BGB is therefore that the injuring party intentionally inflicts the damage and the act is immoral . The measure of action for immorality is “acting against the sense of decency of all those who think cheaply and justly”, thus the prevailing social morality according to general belief.

The high degree of abstraction of this formula has been substantiated by the case law by means of a number of decisions. In addition, case groups were formed to help identify when the assumption of immorality is obvious. One of these case groups deals with the provision of knowingly false information or fraudulent misrepresentation . The breach of existing fiduciary obligations and the temptation to breach the contract can also be combined into a case group. Also of importance is the exploitation of economic power (monopoly positions), process deceptions that make it their task to obtain judgments by fraud or the (subsequent) use of an enforcement title obtained by fraudulent information .

Liability of several

Joint damage, § 830 paragraph 1 sentence 1 BGB

(1) If more than one person has caused damage through a jointly committed unlawful act, everyone is responsible for the damage ...

Effecting a plurality of damage to a third party by joint action, they adhere to § 830 , paragraph 1, sentence 1 BGB to the injured as jointly and ( §§ 420 ff. BGB), ie respectively in full. The liability of the parties involved results from the "assumed" causality of their contributions to the action, provided that they are independently but part-time involved in an objectively, spatially and temporally uniform process. The prevailing opinion assumes that the infringement of legal interests suffered was definitely caused by one or all of the parties involved. This saves the injured party from having to prove which party contributed to which part of the damage. This does not relieve the need to determine which party or parties are responsible for the damaging event.

Liability under Section 830, Paragraph 1, Clause 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) is based on the accusation against those acting jointly that they all created or promoted the risk of damage occurring. If a claim is made against a damaging party that exceeds his fault, he can, however, take recourse against the other damaging party .

Causality doubts in the case of dangerous actions by several, § 830 paragraph 1 sentence 2 BGB

(1) ... The same applies if it cannot be determined which of several parties involved caused the damage through his or her act.

The strengthening of the position of the injured party intended by Section 830 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) fails if several persons who do not act jointly come into consideration as injuring parties. This can happen, for example, in the case of traffic accidents: If several road users independently of one another violate the regulations, which injures a third party, the injured party cannot take action against both of them under Section 830 (1) sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) because they did not cooperate. The drivers involved in the accident can object to the claim under Section 823 (1) BGB that the other person caused the damage. This difficulty is alleviated by § 830 Paragraph 1 Clause 2 BGB. According to this, several parties are jointly and severally liable if it can be proven that they all acted in a way that could have caused the damage and that one of them actually caused the damage.

Disturbed collective guilt

→ Main article : Dysfunctional collective guilt

A disturbed collective guilt arises when one of several injuring parties can invoke a liability privilege. This can happen on the basis of a contract, for example, because two people agree to a car pool in which liability is only assumed for intent. If the driver negligently causes a collision with another vehicle, as a result of which the co-driver is injured, he cannot demand compensation from the driver, as liability for simple negligence has been excluded. However, he can make full claims against the driver of the other vehicle, because he cannot invoke any liability privilege. According to the rules of joint and several debtors' compensation, if the injured party made a claim, he would have to be able to demand at least partial compensation from the driver of the other vehicle, as he was ultimately responsible for the accident.

The question of whether the claim in the joint and several debt settlement breaches the contractual liability privilege from the car pool relationship is generally answered in the affirmative, since otherwise two parties could curtail the legal status of a non-privileged third party (here: party involved in the accident). Maintaining the privilege of liability would be tantamount to a contract to the detriment of a third party , which is incompatible with the constitutionally guaranteed private autonomy . A contractual liability privilege can therefore not develop any effect against the other injuring party, which is why claims exist in the internal settlement of the total debt. In detail, however, it is controversial how this is achieved in a legally constructive way.

Liability for third-party negligence

Some liability facts make someone liable for third-party negligence. Such facts do not provide for any possibility of exoneration, since unlike in the case of liability for vicarious agents, no accusation of fault of their own is made. Instead, it is a matter of shifting liability from the direct damaging party to the third party.

Violation of an official duty, § 839 BGB

→ Main article : Public liability

(1) If a civil servant intentionally or negligently violates his official duty towards a third party, he must compensate the third party for the resulting damage. If the civil servant is only guilty of negligence, he can only be claimed if the injured party is unable to obtain compensation in any other way.

(2) If an official violates his official duty in the judgment in a legal matter, he is only responsible for the resulting damage if the violation of duty consists in a criminal offense. This provision does not apply to an unlawful refusal or delay in exercising office.

(3) The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if the injured party intentionally or negligently failed to avert the damage by using legal remedy.

Claims for damages can also arise on the occasion of the actions of an official in the exercise of his office. The claims are derived from § 839 BGB if official duties have been violated. The standard forms an essential basis of German state liability law . It is only regulated in fragments.

A claim from § 839 BGB requires the sovereign action of an official of any kind, whereby the "liability law concept" according to § 839 BGB in connection with Art. 34 GG is based, or the fiscal action of a civil servant in the "constitutional" sense within the meaning of § 839 BGB. Without this standard a civil servant would be liable for unlawful and culpable infliction of damage according to §§ 823, 826 BGB. The bases for claims are, however, superseded by § 839 BGB. From the summary of the actions of an official in § 839 BGB it becomes clear that the term “civil servant” is not required in a civil servant relationship . Officials can then also be private individuals who work for the state, for example through lending , for example TÜV inspectors for community service or towing companies. The prerequisite, however, is that the official does not commit the violation of legal interests occasionally as part of his public law act, but in the concrete exercise of his office. In this respect, there must be an internal connection between office and action. Furthermore, the standard requires the illegal and culpable breach of an official duty that exists towards a third party . Covering such areas as duty to lawful administrative action , the non-committing illegal acts as defined in §§ 823 ff. BGB, the proper and complete provision of information to the citizens and the observance of official secrecy . Official duties do not have to serve alone, but at least also serve to protect the citizen. The third direction of the circle of duties includes the specifically affected legal interests or interests of the injured party with personal and objective protection.

Section 839 (1) sentence 2 BGB contains a subsidiarity clause and stipulates that no liability restrictions may intervene. In the event of negligent action, claims can only be made against the public official if the injured party cannot obtain compensation in any other way. The legislator created this regulation in order to avoid public officials from exercising their office hesitantly and ineffectively for fear of personal liability. Section 839 (3) of the BGB imposes the obligation on the injured party to avert the damage by using a legal remedy. The injured party must therefore seek legal protection in good time to avert the occurrence of the damage. If he culpably does not do this, this excludes his claim. Section 839 (2) of the German Civil Code gives privileged judges who are used. In the event of a breach of official duty, they are only liable if their breach of official duty constitutes a criminal offense, such as a perversion of the law ( Section 339 of the Criminal Code).

The sovereign action of an official in the sense of liability law means that Section 839 of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not only apply as the basis for a claim, but instead comes alongside Article 34 of the Basic Law . About Article 34 of the Basic Law of § 839 BGB arranged liability of officials under certain conditions on the state or indirect state administration (is institutions , corporations ) transferred for which the official has acted. Such a transfer of liability in the sense of the transfer of office theory always requires that the civil servant has acted in a sovereign function. This is lacking when civil servants in the sense of status law are active in the private sector.

Expert liability, § 839a BGB

(1) If an expert appointed by the court deliberately or grossly negligently provides an incorrect expert opinion, he is obliged to compensate for the damage suffered by a party to the proceedings as a result of a court decision based on this expert opinion.

(2) Section 839 (3) shall apply accordingly.

§ 839a BGB contains a regulation on the liability of court-appointed experts . Experts are obliged to pay compensation for judicial decisions based on an incorrect expert opinion. However, their liability is limited to intent and gross negligence as a particularly serious form of negligence, since the judicial, unlike the private expert, cannot negotiate a limitation of liability through a contract.

Liability due to wrongfulness in rebuttable suspected fault

The claims regulated in Sections 823-826, 830 and 839 BGB presuppose that the opposing party has caused the damage, with regard to liability for culpable injustice . In certain cases, the opposing party is responsible for damage caused by a third party. In these cases, the law speaks of injustice in the case of rebuttable suspected fault . The starting point of liability for damages is the accusation that the opposing party has not adequately ensured that a third party attributable to him does not harm anyone. Since the defendant is presumed to be at fault, the claimant does not need to prove the same.

Liability for vicarious agents, § 831 BGB

(1) Anyone who appoints someone else to perform the task is obliged to compensate for the damage that the other person unlawfully inflicts on a third party in performing the performance. The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if the business owner observes the care required in the traffic in the selection of the appointed person and, if he has to procure devices or equipment or to manage the execution, or if the damage also occurs using this care would have arisen.

(2) The same responsibility rests with the person who takes over one of the business dealings referred to in paragraph 1 sentence 2 by contract for the principal.

Liability for vicarious agents is regulated in Section 831 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and is relevant if someone with the knowledge and will of the principal is acting in his business area subject to instructions and thereby causing someone damage. The injured party can turn against the principal (§§ 831 BGB) and against the vicarious agent (§§ 823–826 BGB). The business owner can defend himself against the claim from § 831 BGB by exculpating himself . He must provide evidence that he has properly selected and instructed his vicarious agent or that the damage would have occurred even if the principal had selected and monitored his vicarious agent with sufficient care. Vicarious agents act in accordance with instructions, which typically applies to employment relationships between employer and employee .

In larger companies, the “decentralized discharge proof” comes into play. The entrepreneur has to refute the presumption of culpable behavior against him to the extent that, according to the prevailing opinion , he is not accused of selecting and supervising another manager who is performing his duties. A complete discharge chain through to vicarious agents is not necessary in this respect. However, in the case of discharge, an organizational fault in the context of the violation of traffic safety obligations according to § 823 paragraph 1 BGB comes into consideration.

Liability for persons subject to supervision, § 832 BGB

(1) Anyone who is legally obliged to supervise a person who is in need of supervision because of being a minor or because of their mental or physical condition is obliged to compensate for the damage that this person unlawfully inflicts on a third party. The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if he fulfills his duty of supervision or if the damage would have arisen even with proper supervision.

(2) The same responsibility rests with the person who takes over the supervision by contract.

A claim under Section 832 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) can be considered if damage is caused by a person who is subject to the supervision of a third party. Such supervision exists, for example, between parents and children. Section 832 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) also establishes a presumption that the parents who are responsible for supervision have not fulfilled their duty to supervise unless they refute the allegation of fault. The scope of "appropriate supervision" depends on the individual case. The decisive factors are the child's age, individuality and character.

Section 832 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) extends liability by law to contractually agreed supervisory duties. This applies to kindergarten teachers and child minders, for example.

Liability of the animal owner, § 833 sentence 2 BGB

→ Main article : Animal owner liability

If an animal kills a person or injures the body or health of a person or damages something, the person holding the animal is obliged to compensate the injured person for the resulting damage. The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if the damage is caused by a pet that is intended to serve the occupation, employment or maintenance of the animal owner, and either the animal owner observes the care required in traffic while supervising the animal or the damage as well using this care would have arisen.

§ 833 BGB obliges the owner of an animal to compensate for damage caused by this animal. Liability is based on the consideration that animals pose a risk of unpredictable behavior and covers every animal behavior that is uncontrollable or even uncontrollable by humans, such as the runaway of a horse orthe flight of a pigeon into an aircraft turbine. The agitation of an animal leads to the culprit's liability under § 823 BGB.

The pet owner can exonerate himself from the accusation of fault in accordance with § 833 sentence 2 BGB. To this end, he must provide evidence of exoneration in accordance with §§ 831, 832 BGB by proving that either the animal was supervised with the necessary care or that the lack of supervision of the animal was not the cause of the occurrence of the damage. However, this exculpation is only possible with pets that are used as farm animals. It is excluded in the event of damage by a luxury animal, i.e. an animal that is not kept for professional or other gainful purposes. Proof of exoneration for farm animals that are not pets, such as honeybees and riding horses kept for therapeutic purposes, is also excluded.

§ 834 BGB extends the liability of the animal owner to the animal overseer. Unlike the owner, this person can provide evidence of exoneration for all types of animals.

Liability of the property owner, § 836 BGB

(1) If a person is killed, the body or health of a person is injured or an object is damaged by the collapse of a building or other work connected to a piece of property or through the detachment of parts of the building or the work, the owner of the Property, if the collapse or the detachment is the result of incorrect construction or poor maintenance, is obliged to compensate the injured person for the resulting damage. The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if the owner has observed the care required in traffic in order to avert the danger.

(2) A previous owner of the property is responsible for the damage if the collapse or the detachment occurs within one year after the end of his property, unless he has observed the due care required in the traffic during his possession or a later owner by observing this care, the danger could have been averted.

(3) Owner within the meaning of these regulations is the owner.

Section 836 (1) BGB, which is structurally related to the liability in Sections 831–833 BGB, standardizes liability for the collapse of a building or the detachment of a building component. The opposing party is the owner of the property. The injured party must prove to this that the collapse or detachment can be traced back to the incorrect construction or inadequate maintenance of the building. The fault of the opposing party is presumed.

The presumption of Section 836 (1) BGB is also refutable. Due to the sufficient compliance with the duty of care, the building should not have posed any danger. In addition, the previous owner claimed against in accordance with Section 836 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) can argue in his defense that the later owner could have averted the danger by careful personal behavior. Furthermore, the defendant can avoid his liability by proving that the lack of care was not causal for the damage.

Section 836 (2) of the German Civil Code allows claims against the previous property owner if the damaging event occurs within one year of the termination of his possession. § 837 BGB extends this liability to the owner of the building, § 838 BGB to the person who is obliged to maintain the building. Such a maintenance obligation can result from a contractual takeover or a right to use the property.

In addition to liability according to § 836 BGB, liability according to § 823 BGB is also possible, liability according to the principles of traffic safety obligations is also possible.

Liability from risk

→ Main article : strict liability

In some areas, German law provides for strict liability for damages, the so-called strict liability. The provisions of this type presuppose acts of offense - just like Section 823 (1) BGB - violations of life or legal goods. The obligation to pay damages occurs regardless of injustice or fault. In most cases strict liability is linked to the "operation" of a potentially dangerous facility.

The operating term is not to be understood as a machine or engine technology, but purely in terms of traffic engineering. Operating risk can proceed as well from a standing vehicle or a switched-off press shop. The legislature considers motor vehicles (Section 7 StVG), railways (Section 1 of the Liability Act ), energy systems (Section 2 of the Liability Act), nuclear power plants ( Section 25 AtG) and aircraft ( Section 33 of the Aviation Act) to be particularly dangerous . These legal matters are therefore regulated in separate laws. If the operation of such an object damages a third party, the operator is liable for compensation without it having to be foreseeable for the third party in relation to the damage that has occurred. The animal owner liability regulated in § 833 sentence 1 BGB is a strict liability insofar as the law excludes the provision of exonerating evidence. Finally, Section 84 of the Medicines Act standardizes strict liability for the trade in medicinal products.

Road traffic, § 7 paragraph 1 StVG

(1) If a person is killed, the body or health of a person is injured or something is damaged while operating a motor vehicle or a trailer which is intended to be carried by a motor vehicle, the owner is obliged to inform the injured person to replace the resulting damage.

(2) The obligation to pay compensation is excluded if the accident is caused by force majeure.

(3) If someone uses the vehicle without the knowledge and will of the vehicle owner, he is obliged to compensate the owner for the damage; in addition, the owner remains obliged to compensate for the damage if the use of the vehicle was made possible through his fault. Sentence 1 does not apply if the user is employed by the vehicle owner to operate the motor vehicle or if the vehicle has been left to him by the owner. Sentences 1 and 2 apply accordingly to the use of a trailer.

Section 7 (1) of the StVG establishes a claim for damages against the owner of a motor vehicle. The owner is whoever has the legal and actual power of disposal over the vehicle. The claim requires damage that occurred while operating a motor vehicle or a trailer. All damage that is based on the fact that a danger emanating from the motor vehicle contributed to the damage can be considered for this.

The owner's liability is excluded if the accident is due to force majeure , Section 7 (2) StVG. Here it is not the operation of the motor vehicle that is decisive for the unpredictable and unavoidable event, but an extraordinary natural event (alien to the operation). Circumstances are foreseeable, however, if one has to reckon with them after general life experience, which can include illegal behavior by other road users, especially that of children. This shortens the scope of Section 7 (2) StVG. The statutory target group is non-motorized road users, especially children.

If someone other than the keeper uses the vehicle without knowing about it, according to § 7 paragraph 3 sentence 1 StVG, it is not the keeper who is liable, but the driver from § 7 paragraph 1 StVG. This exemption is relevant, for example, in the event of vehicle theft. However, if the owner is responsible for using the vehicle, both he and the driver are liable.

The liability of the vehicle driver regulated in Section 18 (1 ) StVG is based on Section 7 (1) StVG . In contrast to Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act, this standard enables the person claimed to avoid liability by proving that he was not responsible for the violation of the legal interest. Due to this possibility of relief, Section 18 (1) of the StVG is a case of liability for suspected own fault.

Product liability, Section 1 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 ProdHaftG

→ Main article : Product liability

(1) If someone kills, his body or his health is injured or something is damaged as a result of a fault in a product, the manufacturer of the product is obliged to compensate the injured party for the resulting damage. In the case of property damage, this only applies if an item other than the defective product is damaged and this other item, by its nature, is usually intended for private use or consumption and has mainly been used for this purpose by the injured party.

Product liability is the liability of the manufacturer of a product for damage caused by the product (s) being faulty. This liability is standardized in the Product Liability Act (ProdHaftG), which came into force at the end of 1989 and implements a European directive. According to Section 15 (2) of the ProdHaftG, product liability is independent from producer liability under Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code.

Products within the meaning of 9783406665455 are movable objects and electricity according to § 2 ProdHaftG. The law also applies to software. A product is defective in accordance with Section 3 of the ProdHaftG if it does not offer the level of security that the user could expect when used as intended. The case law ties in with the error categories of producer liability. The justified expectation is measured, among other things, by the typical group of users, the design of the product and its application.

If the error leads to damage to life, body, health or property, the injured party can claim against the manufacturer of the product, against the person who claims to be the manufacturer by affixing a label to the product, or against the The importer . If such a person cannot be identified, the injured party can contact the supplier in accordance with Section 4 (3) ProdHaftG .

Due to the low eligibility requirements, product liability is subject to some restrictions. According to Section 11 of the ProdHaftG, the injured party bears EUR 500 in the event of property damage. Section 10 (1) of the ProdHaftG limits the maximum liability for personal injury to EUR 85 million. In addition, liability can be completely excluded if there is a reason for exclusion in accordance with Section 1 (2) ProdHaftG, for example if the product was manufactured in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.

Statute of limitations

→ Main article : Statute of limitations (Germany)

The limitation period for a tortious claim begins in principle in accordance with Section 199 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) at the end of the year in which the injured party became aware of the damage and the injured party or should have become aware of this without gross negligence. According to § 195 BGB, it is three years. If the injured party does not know the damage or the party causing the damage, without this being due to gross negligence, the statute of limitations according to Section 199 Paragraph 3 Number 1 BGB expires at the latest within ten years after the occurrence of the damage. If the claim for damages is based on injury to life, body, health or freedom, the limitation period in accordance with Section 199 (2) BGB is extended to thirty years.

International private law

→ Main article : Private international law (Germany)

The starting point of the European Rome II Regulation is based on which legal system is to be used for matters with a foreign element . According to Art. 4 Paragraph 1, the law of the place where the damage occurred is to be applied to tortious claims. This does not apply if the injured party and the injured party have a common habitual place of residence or an obviously closer relationship to the law of another state, for example a contractual relationship that is subject to this law. Then the law of this state is relevant.

In certain cases the Rome II Regulation does not apply. This is the case, for example, with violations of general personal rights. The regulation excludes this area of ​​law from its scope, as the member states could not agree on a uniform regulation in this regard. Outside the scope of the Rome II Regulation, the question of which law is applicable is based on Article 40 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code (EGBGB). According to Art. 40 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 EGBGB, the law of the state in which the injuring party carried out the damaging act applies. If the damage occurs within the scope of another legal system, the injured party can, however, choose whether to choose the law of the place of occurrence instead of the law of the place of action.

literature

• Maximilian Fuchs, Werner Pauker: Tort and compensation law . 8th edition. Springer, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-31617-3 .
• Christian Katzenmeier , Christof Muthers, Christian Huber: §§ 823–853 . In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
• Hein Kötz, Gerhard Wagner: Tort law . 13th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-8006-5177-1 .
• Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 .
• Manfred Wandt: Legal obligations: tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 .
• Ansgar Staudinger : §§ 823-853. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
• Gerhard Wagner , Hans-Jürgen Paper : §§ 823–853 . In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Marco Staake: Statutory Obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 , pp. 161 .
2. ↑ BGHZ 54, 264 . BGHZ 116, 293
3. ↑ BGHZ 55, 392 . BGHZ 66, 315 (319).
4. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 639.
5. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 640.
6. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: Before §§ 823 ff , Rn. 19-20. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
7. ^ Andreas Spickhoff: The basic structure of tortious fault liability . In: Juristische Schulung 2016, p. 865 (866). Gerhard Wagner: Before § 823, Rn. 17-18. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
8. ^ Gerhard Wagner: Before § 823, Rn. 2-6. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
9. ↑ Oliver Stegmann: Assertion of facts and value judgment in the German and French press . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2004, ISBN 978-3-16-148209-0 , p. 41 .
10. ↑ Hein Kötz, Gerhard Wagner: Deliktsrecht . 13th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-8006-5177-1 , Rn. 18th
11. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: Before §§ 823 ff , Rn. 4. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 . Gerhard Wagner: Before § 823, Rn. 14. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
12. ↑ Hein Kötz, Gerhard Wagner: Deliktsrecht . 13th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-8006-5177-1 , Rn. 95.
13. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 605.
14. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: Before §§ 823 ff , Rn. 5-17. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
15. ↑ Marco Staake: Statutory Obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 , pp. 169 .
16. ↑ Hein Kötz, Gerhard Wagner: Deliktsrecht . 13th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-8006-5177-1 , Rn. 97-98.
17. ↑ BGHZ 8, 243 (247).
18. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 16, Rn. 3.
19. ↑ Johanna Croon-Gestefeld: § 823 Abs. 1 BGB: The protected rights and legal interests . In: Jura 2016, p. 1007. Christian Katzenmeier: § 823 , Rn. 11. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
20. ^ Rüdiger Wilhelmi: § 823 , Rn. 17. In: Walter Erman (Ed.): BGB . 15th edition. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-504-47103-3 . Christian Katzenmeier: § 823 , Rn. 12-13. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
21. ^ BGH, judgment of September 25, 1952, 3 StR 742/51 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1953, p. 1440 (1441).
22. ↑ BGHZ 76, 259 (261).
23. ↑ BGHZ 8, 243 (245). BGH, judgment of June 14, 2005, VI ZR 179/04 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 2614.
24. ^ BGH, judgment of June 10, 1995, VI ZR 31/94 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1995, p. 1160 (1161).
25. ↑ BGHZ 107, 359 (363). BGHZ 56, 163 (165).
26. ^ Karl Larenz, Claus-Wilhelm Canaris: Textbook of the law of obligations . 13th edition. tape 2 . Half volume 2: special part . CH Beck, Munich 1993, ISBN 3-406-31484-8 , § 76 II 1 a.
27. ↑ BGHZ 8, 243 .
28. ↑ BGHZ 86, 240 .
29. ↑ BGH, judgment of June 27, 1995, VI ZR 32/94 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1995, p. 2407.
30. ↑ Hartwig Sprau: § 823 , Rn. 6. In: Otto Palandt (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 74th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-67000-8 .
31. ^ LG Bonn, judgment of November 3, 1994, 15 O 169/94 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Jurisdiction Report 1995, p. 1492.
32. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 823 , Rn. 27. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
33. ↑ Renate Schaub: § 823 , Rn. 32. In: Hanns Prütting, Gerhard Wegen, Gerd Weinreich (ed.): Civil Code: Commentary . 12th edition. Luchterhand Verlag, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-472-09000-7 . Gerhard Wagner: § 823, Rn. 210. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
34. ^ Rüdiger Wilhelmi: § 823 , Rn. 35-36. In: Walter Erman (Ed.): BGB . 15th edition. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-504-47103-3 .
35. ↑ Erwin Deutsch: General Liability Law . Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 1995, ISBN 978-3-452-22692-1 , Rn. 189
36. ↑ BGHZ 105, 346 (350): Fish food case. BGHZ 85, 375 (381).
37. ↑ BGHZ 55, 153 : Fleet case. BGHZ 181, 233 .
38. ^ Günter Schwarz, Astrid Ernst: Claims of the property owner against "parking offenders" . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, p. 2550.
39. ↑ BGHZ 41, 123 (126): Hatching egg case.
40. ^ BGH, judgment of December 17, 2010, V ZR 45/10 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 749 (749, 753).
41. ↑ BGHZ 67, 359 : Float switch case . BGHZ 86, 256 : Throttle cable case.
42. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 823, Rn. 270-279. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
43. ↑ BGHZ 65, 211 .
44. ↑ Maximilian Fuchs, Werner Pauker: Tort and compensation law . 8th edition. Springer, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-31617-3 , pp. 34 .
45. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 607
46. ^ Claus-Wilhelm Canaris: The protection of compulsory claims according to § 823 I BGB . In: Erwin Deutsch, Ernst Klingmüller, Hans Kullmann (eds.): Festschrift for Erich Steffen on his 65th birthday on May 28, 1995: The compensation for damages and its coverage . De Gruyter, Berlin 1995, ISBN 978-3-11-087237-8 . , P. 85; Karl Larenz: Textbook of the law of obligations . Volume II, 1st part - special part 2nd CH Beck, Munich 1986, ISBN 3-406-09824-X , p. 604.
47. ↑ BGH, judgment of October 24, 1978, X ZR 42/76 = Commercial legal protection and copyright 1979, p. 145 (148).
48. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 823 , Rn. 282-286. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
49. ↑ First recognition in BGHZ 13, 334 : Schacht-Fall. Last: BGHZ 197, 213 : Google “Autocomplete” function.
50. ^ LG Kiel, judgment of April 27, 2006, 4 O 251/05 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2007, p. 1002. OLG Oldenburg, judgment of November 14, 1988, 13 U 72/88 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1989, p. 400 .
51. ↑ BGHZ 26, 349 : Herrenreiter case .
52. ↑ BGH, judgment of May 20, 2014, VI ​​ZR 381/13 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2014, p. 2190; Annotation by Angie Schneider in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2014, p. 3133.
53. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 615.
54. ^ Against the inheritance of ideal personality components : BGHZ 143, 214; against the inheritance of highly personal personality components: BGHZ 201, 45.
55. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 611.
56. ^ Rolf Sack: The right to the commercial enterprise. History and dogmatics. , Jus privatum (116), Mohr Siebeck, 2007, ISBN 978-3-16-149239-6 .
57. ^ BAG, judgment of November 14, 1984, 5 AZR 394/82 = Der Betrieb 1985, p. 1695 (1696): Illegal sympathy strike.
58. ↑ RGZ 28, 238 . BGHZ 3, 270 (279): Constanze-I case. BGHZ 29, 65 : power cable case.
59. ↑ BGHZ 6, 360 . BGHZ 34, 80 (87). BGH, judgment of February 19, 2014, XII ZB 45/13 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2014, p. 1243.
60. ↑ BGHZ 23, 215 .
61. ↑ BGHZ 23, 279 .
62. ↑ BGHZ 80, 235 (238).
63. ↑ Joachim Gernhuber, Dagmar Coester-Waltjen: Family law . 6th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-406-59513-4 , § 17 Rn. 7th
64. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 619.
65. ↑ BGHZ 110, 323 : Organizational character of the interference; Karsten Schmidt: The association membership as the basis for claims for damages. In: JuristenZeitung 1991, p. 157 (159).
66. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 620a.
67. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 646.
68. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 643.
69. ↑ Johannes Hager: J. von Staudinger's commentary on the German Civil Code: §§ 823 E – I, 824, 825: (unlawful acts 1 - Part 2) . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-8059-1032-3 , § 823, Rn. E 1-2.
70. ^ Christian Förster: traffic safety obligations . In: Legal worksheets 2017, p. 721 (722).
71. ^ BGH, judgment of December 11, 1984, VI ​​ZR 292/82 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1985, p. 1078.
72. ↑ BGH, judgment of March 13, 2001, VI ZR 142/00 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, p. 2019.
73. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 823 , Rn. 405. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
74. ^ BGH, judgment of February 20, 1979, VI ZR 48/78 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1979, p. 1248.
75. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 3 Rn. 62.
76. ↑ Annette Keilmann: Often underestimated: General damage law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2005, p. 700 (701).
77. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 3 Rn. 63-68.
78. ↑ BGHZ 57, 25 .
79. ^ BGH, judgment of May 4, 1993, VI ZR 283/92 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1993, p. 2234. BGHZ 132, 164 (173).
80. ↑ Cases with different outcomes : BGHZ 58, 162 ( sidewalk case : damage to a sidewalk by vehicles driving around an accident site; the BGH denies the liability of those who caused the accident for lack of a challenge) and BGHZ 63, 189 ( juvenile arrest case: minors evade police arrest by jumping out of the toilet window, whereupon a police officer chased him and injured himself; the result of the BGH to impose the risk of persecution on the minor remained very controversial in the literature, especially since the BGH had ruled the other way around in similar cases (see BGH, judgment of July 13, 1971 , VI ZR 165/69 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1971, 1982; BGH, judgment of 13 January 1976, VI ZR 41/751976 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1976, 568)).
81. ↑ BGH, judgment of June 24, 2013, VI ZR 93/12 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, p. 1681. BGH, judgment of December 17, 2013, VI ZR 211/12 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2014, p. 2029 .
82. ^ BAGE 104, 155 . BAG, judgment of April 9, 1991, 1 AZR 332/90 = Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 1991, p. 815.
83. ^ Rüdiger Wilhelmi: § 823 , Rn. 48. In: Walter Erman (Ed.): BGB . 15th edition. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Cologne 2017, ISBN 978-3-504-47103-3 . Horst Ehmann: The general right of personality . In: Jura 2011, p. 437, (438).
84. ↑ Jochen Mohr: illegality and fault in tort law . In: Jura 2013, p. 567 (573-574).
85. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 827 , Rn. 2. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
86. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 14, 1978, VI ZR 133/77 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1979, p. 864. OLG Cologne, judgment of May 5, 1993, 11 U 5/93 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, Judgment Report 1993, p 1498.
87. ↑ Erika Scheffen: On the reform of the (civil) criminal capacity of children from the age of 7 (§ 828 I, II BGB) . In: Journal for Legal Policy 1991, p. 458. Gerhard Wagner: § 828 , Rn. 5. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
88. ↑ BGHZ 161, 180 (183). BGH, judgment of November 30, 2004, VI ​​ZR 365/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 356.
89. ↑ ^{a b} Gerhard Wagner: § 823 , Rn. 858. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
90. ↑ BGHZ 51, 91 : chicken plague case. BGHZ 92, 143 : cupola case . BGHZ 116, 60 : Milupafall .
91. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 823 , Rn. 307-320. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 . Ansgar Staudinger, Paul Czaplinski: Recall and obligation of the producer to bear the costs for domestic and foreign matters . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2008, 401 (402).
92. ↑ BGHZ 99, 391 .
93. ↑ BGHZ 159, 48 (53).
94. ↑ Tobias Voigt: Before § 630a , Rn. 16. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 . Christian Katzenmeier: The treatment contract - a new type of contract in the BGB . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, p. 817.
95. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 22, Rn. 8th.
96. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 3 Rn. 94.
97. ^ BGH, judgment of March 13, 1998, V ZR 190/97 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1998, p. 2058 (2059).
98. ^ Karl-Heinz Gursky: § 1004 , Rn. 15. In: Karl-Heinz Gursky (Ed.): J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 985-1011 (Property III) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-8059-1138-2 .
99. ↑ BGHZ 125, 366 (374).
100. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 621.
101. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 823, Rn. 474. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
102. ↑ Marco Staake: Statutory Obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 , § 9, Rn. 4-5. Gerhard Wagner: § 823, Rn. 526, 543. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
103. ↑ BGHZ 59, 76 (79).
104. ^ BGH, judgment of June 21, 1966, VI ZR 266/64 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1966, p. 2010 (2011).
105. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 824 , Rn. 1-3. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
106. ↑ BGHZ 3, 270 (280-281): Constanze-I case.
107. ↑ Vera von Pentz : Latest case law of VI. Civil Senate on Media and Personal Rights . In: Journal for Media and Communication Law 2013, p. 20.
108. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 824 , Rn. 25-29. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
109. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 825 , Rn. 3. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 . Christian Katzenmeier: § 825 , Rn. 1. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
110. ↑ BT-Drs. 14/7752 , p. 26.
111. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 826 , Rn. 1. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
112. ^ Arndt Teichmann: Liability for incorrect information on the capital market . In: Juristische Schulung 2006, p. 953 (956). Gerhard Wagner: § 826 , Rn. 4. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
113. ↑ RGZ 48, 114 (124). BGH, judgment of July 19, 2004, II ZR 217/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2004, p. 2668 (2770).
114. ↑ BGH, judgment of December 21, 2004, VI ​​ZR 306/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift-Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 611. BGH, judgment of June 22, 1992, II ZR 178/90 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1992, p. 3167.
115. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 826 , Rn. 19-21. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
116. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 17, Rn. 26th
117. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 3 Rn. 131.
118. ↑ BGHZ 13, 71 . BGHZ 40, 130 .
119. ↑ Maximilian Becker, Christopher Weidt: The tortious liability of several . In: Juristische Schulung 2016, p. 481 (483). Christina Eberl-Borges: § 830 BGB and strict liability . In: Archives for civilist practice 1996, p. 492.
120. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 7 Rn. 3.
121. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 840 , Rn. 30. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
122. ^ Johann Braun: Liability for mass damage . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1998, p. 2318 (2320).
123. ↑ Alexander Brade, Markus Gentzsch: The liability of those involved - basic knowledge of § 830 I 2 BGB . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2016, 895 (895–897).
124. ↑ Maximilian Becker, Christopher Weidt: The tortious liability of several . In: Juristische Schulung 2016, p. 481 (489). Anna-Maria Mollenhauer: The disturbed joint debt relationship . In: Neue Justiz 2011, p. 1.
125. ^ BGH, judgment of March 1, 1988, VI ZR 190/87 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1988, p. 2667 (2669).
126. ^ Christian Grüneberg: § 426 , Rn. 22. In: Otto Palandt (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 74th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-67000-8 . Wolf-Dietrich Walker: Liability privileges . In: Juristische Schulung 2015, p. 865 (873–874).
127. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 5 Rn. 1.
128. ^ Heiko Sauer: State liability law . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, p. 695 (696). Joachim Lege: System of German State Liability Law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2016, p. 81 (82).
129. ↑ Hartmut Maurer : General administrative law . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-61452-1 , § 26, Rn. 13-14.
130. ↑ BGHZ 122, 85 (87).
131. ↑ BGHZ 152, 380 (382).
132. ↑ BGHZ 121, 161 (164).
133. ↑ Bernd Hartmann, Samuel Tieben: Official liability . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2014, p. 401 (403–404). Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 5 Rn. 6th
134. ↑ Christof Muthers: § 839 , Rn. 1. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 . Friedrich Schoch: Official Liability . In: Jura 1988, p. 585.
135. ↑ BGHZ 147, 381 .
136. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 839a , Rn. 4. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
137. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 4 Rn. 1.
138. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 4 Rn. 1.
139. ↑ Ansgar Staudinger: § 831 , Rn. 10-12. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
140. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 831 , Rn. 14. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
141. ↑ Ansgar Staudinger: § 831 , Rn. 7. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (eds.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
142. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 823 , Rn. 44-46. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
143. ↑ Oliver Brand: The liability of the person subject to supervision according to § 832 BGB . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, 673 (675).
144. ↑ Ansgar Staudinger: § 832 , Rn. 11-12. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
145. ^ BGH, judgment of January 19, 1993, VI ZR 117/92 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1993, p. 1003. BGHZ 111, 282 (285).
146. ↑ Oliver Brand: The liability of the person subject to supervision according to § 832 BGB . In: Juristische Schulung 2012, 673 (676).
147. ↑ BGHZ 67, 129 .
148. ↑ OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of October 22, 2008, 9 U 75/07 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Jurisdiction Report 2009, p. 453.
149. ↑ OLG Hamm, judgment of February 11, 2004, 13 U 194/03 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2004, p. 2246.
150. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 4 Rn. 25. Gerhard Wagner: § 833 , Rn. 13. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
151. ↑ Decisions of the Reichsgericht in Zivilsachen, Volume 141, p. 406 (407).
152. ^ BGH, December 21, 2010, VI ZR 312/09 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 1961.
153. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 836 , Rn. 24. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 . Manfred Wandt: Legal obligations: tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 18, Rn. 38.
154. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: § 838 , Rn. 2-3. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
155. ↑ Hein Kötz: Liability for special danger: - General clause for strict liability . In: Archives for civilist practice 1970, p. 15.
156. ^ Andreas Spickhoff: The basic structure of tortious fault liability . In: Juristische Schulung 2016, p. 865 (866).
157. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 4 Rn. 23.
158. ↑ BGHZ 87, 133 .
159. ^ BGH, judgment of April 26, 2005, VI ZR 168/04 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 2081.
160. ↑ Michael Burmann: § 7 , Rn. 8. In: Michael Burmann, Rainer Heß, Katrin Hühnermann, Jürgen Jahnke (eds.): Road traffic law . 25th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70386-7 .
161. ↑ BGHZ 7, 338 .
162. ↑ Sven Kuhnert: § 7 , Rn. 60. In: Klaus-Ludwig Haus, Carsten Krumm, Matthias Quarch (eds.): Overall traffic law : civil traffic law, insurance law, administrative offense and criminal law, traffic administration law . 1st edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8329-5348-5 .
163. ↑ Sven Kuhnert: § 7 , Rn. 61. In: Klaus-Ludwig Haus, Carsten Krumm, Matthias Quarch (eds.): 1st edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 3-8329-5348-5 .
164. ↑ BT-Drs. 14/7752 , p. 30.
165. ↑ Sven Kuhnert: § 7 , Rn. 63. In: Klaus-Ludwig Haus, Carsten Krumm, Matthias Quarch (eds.): Overall traffic law : civil traffic law, insurance law, administrative offense and criminal law, traffic administration law . 1st edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8329-5348-5 .
166. ^ Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 , § 6 marginal no. 12.
167. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 21, Rn. 5.
168. ↑ Marco Staake: Statutory Obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 , pp. 319 .
169. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 823 , Rn. 781. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
170. ^ Gerhard Wagner: § 2 ProdHaftG , Rn. 16. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Foroud Shirvani, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 7th edition. tape 6 : Law of Obligations, Special Part IV, Sections 705–853, Partnership Act, Product Liability Act . CH Beck, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-406-66545-5 .
171. ↑ OLG Cologne, April 6, 2006, 3 U 184/05 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 2272.
172. ^ BGH, judgment of March 17, 2009, VI ZR 176/08 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2009, p. 1669.
173. ↑ Marco Staake: Statutory Obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 , pp. 323 .
174. ↑ ^{a b} Christian Katzenmeier: Before §§ 823 ff , Rn. 94. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
175. ↑ Christian Katzenmeier: Before §§ 823 ff , Rn. 95. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .

Please note the information on legal issues!

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on January 23, 2018 in this version .