Road traffic

Traffic law verdict Drunk police car rammed: Does insurance have to pay?

October 10, 2024, 3:07 p.m. Listen to article

This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback

Sometimes when driving under the influence, the damage caused may not be seen as the result of intentional acts. In a recent case, a police car was even rammed. Damage: 30,000 euros. Does insurance pay?

“Have you had anything to drink?” – some people may have heard this before during a police check. But such inquiries may have been unnecessary for officials in a bizarre case (ref.: 6 O 57/21) that was heard before the Ellwangen regional court. The officers were rammed by their vehicle while pursuing a drunk driver.

However, anyone who intentionally causes accidents must pay for the damage out of their own pocket. In individual cases, a high blood alcohol level cannot change this, reports the Traffic Law Working Group of the German Lawyers’ Association (DAV).

Drunk rioted and rammed the police car on the highway

The case under discussion was about a man who was being chased by the police on a motorway. The drunk had previously rioted in a rest stop. During the chase, the man rammed the police car with his car. Result: An officer was injured and the police car was wrecked. A court case had to clarify whether the drunk had to pay the damage of more than 30,000 euros out of his own pocket.

The court considered the act to be intentional. Despite his blood alcohol content of 1.54 per mille, he was able to recognize the situation and consciously ram the car. According to the reasoning, he knowingly and approvingly accepted the consequences. And that includes personal injuries. This was shown not only by witness statements and the taking of evidence – but also by the knowledge of the effects that children would have on the bumper car fair.

The man with life experience should have known better

The court assumed that the “experienced defendant” was aware of the physical effects of a sudden acceleration of the head of the occupant of a rammed vehicle. Since the insurance company didn’t have to pay because of the intentional act, the man was left with the damage himself.