Higher Regional Court ruling: rear-end collisions are not always the sole fault of the successor!

Higher Regional Court ruling: rear-end collisions are not always the sole fault of the successor!

In a current decision by the Hessian Higher Regional Court (OLG), the previous opinion on the distribution of blame in rear-end collisions is being re-evaluated. How stern.de reported, in the case that occurred in the summer of 2021, the following driver's liability was reduced from 80 to 50 percent. The trial revolved around an accident in the area of ​​a motorway construction site in which the driver in front suddenly canceled a lane change that had already been initiated, which resulted in heavy braking and ultimately a rear-end collision.

The material damage in this incident amounted to almost 60,000 euros. The Gießen regional court had initially decided to burden the next driver with 80 percent, but the OLG found that the blame should be distributed evenly. The judges based their decision on the fact that the driver in front did not pay attention to the traffic behind him when rejoining and also did not signal, which led to considerable complicity.

New legal assessment of rear-end collisions

Rear-end collisions are among the most common traffic accidents. Legal assessments often focus on the liability of the rear-ending driver. The so-called prima facie evidence states that the driver is considered to be inattentive or not keeping a safe distance. However, this called the OLG's decision into question, as the actual circumstances of the accident are decisive for the distribution of liability.

Heskamp law firm highlights that special circumstances such as changing lanes, braking for no reason, serial accidents or sideways collisions can influence liability. The current decision of the Higher Regional Court clarifies this complexity and shows that prima facie evidence is not always applicable if the behavior of the driver in front is assessed as problematic.

An overview of relevant judgments

The legal discussion is also reflected in a large number of available judgments that deal with the distribution of liability in rear-end collisions. Some of these significant decisions include:

• BGH – Urteil v. 13.12.11: Anscheinsbeweis nicht anwendbar bei Spurwechsel des Vorausfahrenden, wenn Sachverhalt unklar bleibt.
• LG Mönchengladbach – Urteil v. 25.08.08: Starkes Abbremsen des Vorausfahrenden kann Alleinhaftung zur Folge haben.
• OLG Celle – Urteil v. 19.12.07: Kein Anscheinsbeweis zu Lasten beider Parteien bei Kollision zwischen linksabbiegendem Fahrzeug und überholendem Motorrad.
• OLG Frankfurt – Urteil v. 02.03.06: Grundloses Abbremsen des Fahrers schließt Anscheinsbeweis für Verschulden des Auffahrenden aus.

These rulings show that liability in rear-end collisions depends not only on the type of accident, but also on the specific behavior of the drivers involved. The current decision of the Higher Regional Court is still not legally binding and could serve as a guide in future cases.