Shocked court judgment: Liability after accident with children in focus!

drivers are obliged to drive particularly carefully and slowly when driving past line or school buses at stops to ensure the safety of children. This was confirmed by a decision by the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Hamm (Az.: 7 U 120/22), which dealt with liability in a specific case.

In this incident, a 12-year-old boy who wanted to cross the road after getting out of a bus was hit by a driver. The driver had retained a speed of about 15 to 20 km/h. Tragically, the young serious injuries suffered, including an open lower leg fracture and a cerebral hemorrhage, which resulted in a lengthy recovery.

liability and duty of care

The OLG Hamm decided that the driver had to be adhered to 70 percent for the accident because he had not taken into account the required duties of care towards children. The court made it clear that the perception of recognizable dangers, such as eliminating children, must be reduced at walking speed. The driver was also obliged to pay a compensation for pain and suffering of 8,500 euros. However, he was not 100 percent liable because the behavior of the 12-year-old was classified as undergraduate. The boy had carelessly crossed the street behind the bus.

in a similar context, the OLG Hamm appeared in a judgment of June 25, 2024 (I-7 U 142/23) with a case of a ten-year-old child who had run on the opposite lane between waiting vehicles and collided with a vehicle. In this case, the court found that the child had violated the traffic regulations in accordance with Section 25 (3) StVO. As part of this decision, central legal questions about the child's ability to inspect were clarified in accordance with Section 828 (3) of the German Civil Code and the weighing up between the risk of operation of the vehicle and the child's negligence in accordance with Section 254 BGB.

The court decided that children under the age of 10 do not have any traffic accidents, unless they actively act. From the age of 10, however, it is expected that children are able to recognize basic dangers in road traffic. Drivers must exercise special caution, but are not solely responsible if the child's behavior is grossly negligent. The operating risk of the vehicle plays a role in weighing up liability.

The OLG found that the risk of operating does not completely resign behind the child's fault. In this case, the child was involved in a fault because it could have recognized the risk of his behavior. This judgment is in accordance with previous decisions of the Federal Court of Justice and other Higher Regional Court.

The practical consequences of the decision are considerable: both drivers and parents have a special responsibility. Drivers should be ready to brake while parents should educate their children about traffic hazards. In traffic accidents with children, a thorough examination of the liability question is essential. Damaged persons have the possibility of asserting claims despite the negligence of the child if the operating risk of the vehicle is relevant, which underlines the importance of proper evidence in legal disputes.