References without law book default to BGB.

Case - Damaged Stroller

Facts

Tom (T) is from Austria and is studying abroad in Munich. One day, he rides his bike on the way to the university. He is distracted because he reads an advertisement beside the road and does not see Claire (C) returning home from a walk in the park. T hits C’s baby stroller. The baby is unhurt, but the stroller gets damaged and must be repaired. The repair costs EUR 250.

Does T owe compensation to C?

Solution

Slides Solution

• Issue: Does T owe compensation of EUR 250 to C according to § 823 I BGB?
• Rule: § 823 I BGB (Liability in damages).
• Application:
  • (1) Harm caused to life, body, health, freedom, property, or another right of another person: → (+), the baby stroller is the property of C.
  • (2) Harm caused by an action: → (+), the property got damaged by T hitting the stroller with his bike while riding.
  • (3) Causality between action and the harm: → (+), if T had not hit the stroller, there would not have been harm to C’s property.
  • (4) Action unlawful (no justification such as self-defense): → (+), there is no justification for T damaging the stroller.
  • (5) Fault element (intention/negligence): → (+), T was distracted and, therefore, damaged the property negligently (§ 276 II BGB).
  • (6) Financial loss for C as a result of the harm to her property: → (+), repair costs of EUR 250.
• Conclusion: C can claim compensation from T in the amount of EUR 250 in line with § 823 I BGB.

Write-Up

Issue: Can C demand compensation of EUR 250 from T for the repair of her stroller under § 823 I BGB?

Rule: Under § 823 I BGB, a person who intentionally or negligently and unlawfully injures the property of another is liable to compensate the other party for the resulting damage.

Application:
1. Harm to a protected right: The baby stroller is a tangible thing owned by C. Therefore, T injured C’s property.

2. Action and Causality: T’s act of riding his bicycle and failing to steer away from the stroller was the equivalent and adequate cause of the collision. Had T not ridden into the stroller, it would not have been damaged.

3. Unlawfulness: In tort law, the direct infringement of an absolute right (such as property) establishes a presumption of unlawfulness (Erfolgsunrecht). There are no justifications apparent in the facts (e.g., self-defense under § 227 BGB or necessity under § 228 BGB). Thus, T’s action was unlawful.

4. Fault: To be liable under § 823 I BGB, the tortfeasor must act with fault (intent or negligence). Under § 276 II BGB, a person acts negligently if they fail to exercise the care required in ordinary life. By reading an advertisement instead of looking at the path ahead while riding a bike, T clearly failed to exercise the required care and thus acted negligently.

5. Damage: C suffered a financial loss in the form of repair costs amounting to EUR 250 (§ 249 II 1 BGB).

Conclusion: C can successfully claim compensation of EUR 250 from T under § 823 I BGB.