Man falls in Gully: the municipality has to pay 12,500 euros in pain and suffering!

Man falls in Gully: the municipality has to pay 12,500 euros in pain and suffering!

A severe fall that had far-reaching consequences: A 27-year-old man was awarded a total of 12,500 euros in pain and suffering after an accident that occurred in September 2020. The incident happened in Lindwedel when the plaintiff was traveling with his dogs and, unfortunately, fell into a seepage shaft because the gully's lid broke away. His leg got into the shaft and the kneecap was broken. This is reported by the Mopo .

The municipality of Lindwedel initially dismissed all allegations and rejected the payment of pain and suffering. In a trial before the Verden district court, she also won by arguing that the gully cover had been regularly checked. But the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Celle rated the matter differently and agreed with the plaintiff. According to the applicable liability law, the seepage shaft was to be regarded as a dangerous investment, and the municipality could not prove that the accident was due to force majeure.

legal bases

For municipalities, strict traffic safety obligations apply. The current legal discussion about liability in such accidents shows that residents and road users rely on the fact that the municipalities have such sources of danger in view. As can be seen from an expert work on municipal liability, the basics for the obligation to ensure traffic safety are complex. Among other things, the book addresses liability in the context of road traffic security obligations and the importance of co -fault in the event of damage. This information can be read in a publication, among other things, which deals intensively with this topic: ESV-Elibrary .

In the specific case, the gully cover remained unobtrusive after the incident, which prevented a later assessment. For the municipality, this means not only the payment of the pain and suffering, but also the coverage of further costs of around 4,400 euros, which is incurred for loss of earnings, budgetary damage and legal fees. In addition, it has to replace any future damage.

protection for the public

Many are not aware of the dangers in public ways. For example, in another case, it was decided that a municipality is not liable for stumbling blocks on a road parade, especially if a level only protrudes above the level of the street. Here the plaintiff has to prove that the municipality has violated its duties to avoid danger. Such a judgment illustrates how different the legal assessments can be and that the responsibilities are often complex. The Specialist this impressively illustrates this on the basis of one case, whereby the plaintiff was involved in an important part of the judgment.

The case from Lindwedel shows that it is worth taking the legal path in connection with public investments in connection with public investments. Exchange and information about safe paths are of great importance for all road users to prevent future accidents.