BGH Urteil vom 30 April 1996 VI ZR 55/95: Neurose und Schmerzensgeld

Abstract

The decision of the BGH was based on the following set of facts: As a result of a traffic accident in August 1983, the plaintiff, who was then 46 years old and worked as a telephone technical operator with the Bundespost, suffered serious injuries to the chest and throat. The plaintiff, who had already suffered injuries as a result of accidents in the years between 1965 and 1982 was almost completely unfit for work following the new accident. Stays in various different clinics brought no noticable improvement in his condition. In particular he suffered pains in the areas of the chest, abdomen and back. The plaintiff was adjudged unfit for work and pensioned off with effect from 1 November 1985. Claiming that he was still suffering from the consequences of the accident, and that his pensioning off was also attributable to the event, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, damages for pain and suffering, which he considered should be assessed at at least 25,000DM. The Landgericht rejected the claim. The Oberlandesgericht awarded damages of 50,000DM. The defendant's appeal on a point of law to the BGH was unsuccessful. According to the BGH, a tortfeasor is in principle liable for the psychological damage that flows from his tortious act - even if it arises from the prior susceptibility of the injured party to that kind of damage, or a nervous disorder. The only circumstances in which liability will not be imposed is when the event that causes the harm is trivial and does not have a direct impact on the degree of damage suffered by the injured party. From a procedural point of view, no upper limit is imposed on the judge in his assessment of the damages considered appropriate under § 308 ZPO by the plaintiff's claim for a minimum amount or suggestion of an indicative figure.