The legal aftermath of the fire brigade carnival ball 2018 is being extended.
Even at yesterday's appointment before the Munich district court, it could not be clarified who is to blame for the fact that a patio heater fell over and a ball guest was injured.
Instead, there were explicit allegations, implicit allegations and open criticism of the reviewer.
Dachau / Munich
- Admittedly, the incident was a long time ago, and the legal tug-of-war over compensation has been going on for a while now. As a reminder: At the fire brigade ball at the beginning of February 2018, a tumbling patio heater that was set up in the smoking area in front of the Thomahaus and was probably knocked down by a drunken ball guest injured a young woman from Dachau. Represented by her lawyer Peter Bürgel, the student is now demanding compensation for pain and suffering from the Dachau fire brigade; a first court hearing before the regional court in February 2020 ended without result. Since then, briefs have been exchanged and an expert opinion has been drawn up that should clarify the question: Did the fire brigade take sufficient care of the safety of their guests?
But despite the long time that the proceedings dragged on, yesterday in front of the regional court it got emotional again - especially between the chairman of the fire brigade, Stefan Fichtl, and his former employer, the former mayor and current representative, Peter Bürgel.
Judge Dr.
In the meantime, Agnes Winkler had every effort to keep both sides in check: “Mr. Bürgel, now it's quiet!” Or “Mr. Fichtl, no reproaches!” She scolded.
Fire department rejects an amicable agreement
To come to the point: the matter has not been resolved even after yesterday's negotiation.
The fire brigade rejects an amicable agreement.
And for a judgment that fire brigade chairman Fichtl demands, Dipl.-Ing.
Wolfgang Burgert's expert opinion does not reveal enough facts.
The Munich civil engineer found on the one hand that the patio heater had only tipped over because it had obviously been knocked down by a person - still unknown.
On the other hand, Bungert had to admit that he was not at the scene of the accident for his report and that he used a standard patio heater such as is used in the catering trade for his assumptions.
And this was the point that Bürgel criticized.
"It is important to us that we investigate the matter, we need a complete reconstruction to clear up the matter," said Bürgel.
For this it is essential "that the patio heater is identifiable".
In this respect, he does not understand, firstly, “why the expert was not on site” and secondly, the fire brigade - Bürgel always referred to them as “the defendant” - today no longer knows or wants to know from whom they borrowed the radiant heaters for the ball have.
"It can't be," said Bürgel, "that a well-run association works with such radiant heaters and today no longer knows where they came from!"
Extensive safety check before the ball
Chairman Fichtl resisted. The fire brigade wanted to make it more comfortable for their guests with the mushrooms in the smoking area, and, according to Fichtl's memory, Bürgel always liked to smoke under the radiant heater. In addition, a detailed safety check of the radiators had taken place before the ball. However, at the time of the accident it had a higher priority for him to take care of the injured person than to try to get a photo and an exact documentation of the fallen spotlight. Sure, Fichtl continues, he knows the names of the two patio heater lenders, but who of the gentlemen in question gave exactly the part that was knocked down on that fateful evening he couldn't remember today!
Since Bürgel assumed, however, that the patio heater in question was merely a "patio heater" which should never have been set up in the disordered situation of a fire brigade ball, judge Winkler summed it up in the direction of the fire brigade as follows: She feared Fichtl would both patio heater lenders now “have to procure” as witnesses.
Fire brigade attorney Michael Reindl was angry and railed in the direction of his colleague Bürgel that he would only insist on the new witnesses, as he was "swimming away".
Because judge Winkler also warned once that it may never be possible to find out what kind of the accident fungus was.
Nevertheless, the process continues.
An appointment is still pending.
