In its judgment of 17 June 2014, the BGH ruled that a cyclist who was involved in an accident through no fault of their own cannot be held contributorily negligent for not wearing a bicycle helmet, as long as no helmet requirement, or at least a corresponding general public traffic awareness, existed at the relevant time.
© bevangoldswain / istcokphoto.com
The claimant was cycling to work on an inner-city street without wearing a bicycle helmet. The driver of a car parked at the right-hand edge of the road opened the driver's door from the inside directly in front of the approaching cyclist. The claimant was unable to swerve, struck the door and fell to the ground. As a result of the fall, she suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, the extent of which was aggravated by the fact that she was not wearing a helmet. The BGH held that wearing a bicycle helmet is not legally required and that, in the absence of any breach of a statutory provision, contributory negligence can only be attributed to an injured party if they have failed to exercise the care that a reasonable and prudent person would normally apply to avoid harm to themselves.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
Does failing to wear a bicycle helmet constitute contributory negligence in accidents?
No. According to the BGH ruling of 17 June 2014 (Az. VI ZR 281/13), a cyclist who is involved in an accident through no fault of their own cannot be held contributorily negligent for not wearing a helmet. The prerequisite is that, at the time of the accident, neither a statutory helmet requirement nor a corresponding general public awareness existed.
Under what conditions can contributory negligence be attributed to an injured party in the absence of a legal violation?
Contributory negligence can only be assumed if the injured party failed to exercise the care that a prudent and reasonable person would apply to avoid harm to themselves. The mere absence of a statutory duty is not sufficient to exclude contributory negligence; however, there must be a general public awareness of the protective measure in question.
Is there a statutory helmet requirement for cyclists in Germany?
No, there is no statutory helmet requirement for cyclists in Germany. The BGH also held that there is no general public traffic awareness that wearing a helmet forms part of a cyclist's personal protective equipment.
What is the significance of the BGH ruling for compensation claims of injured cyclists?
Injured cyclists do not have to accept a reduction in their claims, even in cases of severe head injuries, simply because they were not wearing a helmet, provided the accident was caused by a third party. Claims for damages and pain and suffering therefore remain fully enforceable.
What applies when opening a car door toward passing cyclists?
Anyone opening a vehicle door must act in accordance with § 14 StVO in such a way that any endangerment of other road users is ruled out. If a person opens the door immediately in front of an approaching cyclist, they are typically solely liable for the resulting damages.