Enlarge image
Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe
Photo: Uli Deck / dpa
A Porsche driver does not receive any compensation because her car was parked for a few days and she therefore had to drive her second car.
A lower prestige from their point of view, a different driving experience or more driving pleasure did not make it unreasonable to use the other car, said the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in a decision published on Friday.
No financial loss was incurred (
Az. VI ZR 35/22
).
The plaintiff had parked her Porsche convertible in a garage.
The owner of the garage reportedly had a legal dispute with the company that had rented the garage.
In this context, he blocked the exit for two weeks by parking another vehicle in front of it.
According to the BGH, the plaintiff wanted to go on vacation to Lake Garda at the time.
She therefore did not consider her second car, a BMW 3 Series, to be of equal value.
In Leipzig, she sued the garage owner because of the blockade for compensation for loss of use of 175 euros per day, i.e. a total of 2450 euros.
But she was unsuccessful before the district court and later the regional court.
Revision rejected
The district court stated that she was not entitled to compensation because she had another car at her disposal.
The appreciation for a specific vehicle is not a criterion for compensation for use.
The BGH now argued similarly – and rejected the appeal.
It is true that the garage owner had unlawfully and culpably infringed on the plaintiff's ownership of the Porsche.
In order to receive compensation, however, it is necessary that a car owner actually wanted to use his car during the period in question and that he also needs it for everyday life.
However, this does not apply if he has another reasonable car.
Advantages that increase the quality of life - such as the higher prestige of a car - are not replaceable material values.
wit/AFP