–
In fact, the Brinker bakery and one of its drivers, whom they had sued for 3,803.28 euros in damages, were already apart at the end of August 2020 after a settlement proposed by the labor court and accepted by both sides. But then the driver revoked this settlement by repaying 500 euros in ten monthly installments and thus ensured a chamber appointment with a judgment: Now he is asked to pay 950 euros in damages plus proportionate court costs of 25 percent and also higher fees for his lawyer Kaufmann.
–
On June 2, 2019, the driver had a cake load over the ramp of his delivery truck. The employer accused the man of having badly secured the cargo beforehand and sued the employee for full compensation. However, the argument of the employer, represented by lawyer Kuhlmann, that the driver caused the damage “grossly negligently”, did not accept Judge Große-Wilde in the first appointment at the end of August. However, there are probably indications of “negligence”. But that requires a quota for the damage. Hence your suggestion that the employee should reimburse 500 euros in ten monthly installments from September 2020 (halloherne reported).
When the ex-employee withdrew, the 3rd chamber had to negotiate. Attorney Kaufmann explained the reasons for his client, who was not present because of a sore throat, for the revocation that, according to his client, a second driver was involved in the damage at the time. He does not deny the damage and the participation, “but I deny whether these cake containers were able to cause this damage.” bad discharge was undamaged. After a long consultation, the decision was made: The driver was sentenced to contribute 950.82 euros to the damage of 3,803.28 euros. The procedural costs were accordingly: the ex-employee has to pay 25 percent, the remaining 75 percent remain with the former employer.
Even at the start of the hearing, the judge expressed her amazement that this settlement, which was concluded at the time and was more favorable to both sides, was revoked at all. Before this revocation, he had also discussed it in detail with his client, according to lawyer Kaufmann. But his client could not be dissuaded. (AZ 3 Ca 2117/19)
–
