© bevangoldswain / istcokphoto.com
In its judgment of 5 June 2013, the OLG Schleswig-Holstein ruled that a cyclist who collides with another road user behaving contrary to traffic rules in public road traffic and thereby suffers head injuries must, as a general rule, accept contributory negligence for not wearing a bicycle helmet. The owner of a car parked at the right-hand edge of the carriageway opened the driver's door from the inside directly in front of an approaching cyclist, so that the cyclist could no longer avoid the collision, struck the door, fell onto the back of her head and sustained severe skull and brain injuries. According to the OLG, the cyclist bears contributory negligence for the head injuries sustained because she had not worn a helmet and thus failed to take protective measures for her own safety. With this decision, the OLG implies an indirect helmet obligation, even though there is no general statutory requirement to wear a helmet. In the view of the OLG, it can be assumed today that a reasonable person, in order to avoid harm to themselves, will wear a helmet when cycling if they expose themselves to public road traffic with its particular risk of injury.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
Must a cyclist without a helmet accept contributory negligence in case of an accident?
According to a ruling by the OLG Schleswig-Holstein dated 5 June 2013, a cyclist who collides with a third party acting in breach of traffic regulations on public roads and suffers head injuries must generally accept contributory negligence if no bicycle helmet was worn. The court reasoned that the injured party failed to take protective measures for their own safety.
Is there a statutory helmet requirement for cyclists in Germany?
There is no general statutory helmet requirement for cyclists in Germany. However, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein has effectively introduced an indirect helmet obligation through its contributory negligence case law, as cyclists without a helmet must expect their claims to be reduced in the event of head injuries.
How does the OLG Schleswig-Holstein justify the indirect helmet obligation?
According to the OLG, it can be assumed today that a reasonable person wears a helmet when cycling in public road traffic to avoid personal injury. The particular risk of injury in road traffic justifies this expectation, even without an explicit statutory rule.
What were the facts underlying the OLG decision on bicycle helmets?
The owner of a car parked at the side of the road opened the driver's door directly in front of an approaching cyclist. Unable to swerve, the cyclist collided with the door, fell onto the back of her head, and sustained severe head and brain injuries. Despite the driver's fault, the cyclist was found to be contributorily negligent for not wearing a helmet.