The fact that a passenger was heavily intoxicated himself does not change that. This is shown by a judgment (case no.: 7 U 2/20) by the Schleswig Higher Regional Court, to which the Traffic Law Working Group of the German Lawyers’ Association (DAV) refers. In the specific case, it was about a man who had already drunk considerable amounts of alcohol with the later driver on the afternoon of the day of the accident. Both worked on the driver’s garage door and then drove the car to a restaurant.
The two drove off early in the morning, the later plaintiff as a passenger. The trip ended at excessive speed with a collision with an agricultural vehicle.
Serious injuries
The driver was found to be 1.68 per thousand and the passenger 1.71 per thousand. He suffered serious injuries in the accident and was no longer able to work as a self-employed metalworker, even after a long period of inpatient treatment. First, the driver’s insurance company paid compensation of 30,000 euros and a further 10,000 euros as a freely offsettable advance.
The man demanded a total of 95,000 euros, also because of the permanent damage he had suffered. The insurance company accused the man of knowing or at least realizing that the driver was drunk. He was also not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident.
Mostly in the toilet?
The man argued he hadn’t realized the driver was drunk. He testified that he spent most of the time in the restaurant in the restroom with gastrointestinal problems.
The district court partially agreed. The man had to be held responsible for one-third of the crime, so he was only entitled to around EUR 43,000 more. And future damage can only be compensated for by two-thirds.
The court found that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt. He also violated self-care when he got on the drunk. The fact that he himself was under the influence of alcohol did not stand in the way of his complicity.
No insight
As a further instance, the Higher Regional Court confirmed the verdict. The investigations of an expert underpinned: The plaintiff was not buckled. It was also confirmed that the driver was at fault, since the man got into the car with a “visibly drunk driver”.
The objection that he did not want to have recognized that of the driver due to his own heavy alcohol consumption did not change that. The court ruled that negligent. By drinking alcohol, he had put himself in a state in which one no longer had the insight required for self-protection.
–
