Enlarge image
Photo: Andreas Arnold / DPA
What is the difference between a Porsche 911 and a Ford Mondeo?
With the former he could drive to work, with the latter not - at least that's what a plaintiff argued before the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt am Main.
The starting point was a traffic accident in which the plaintiff's sports car was damaged.
The defendant was liable for the damage and compensated part of it.
With his lawsuit, the Porsche owner wanted to win the remaining difference to the actual repair costs and compensation for use for 112 days of repair time.
His reasoning: The use of another vehicle was not possible and not reasonable.
Repair costs awarded, compensation denied
In fact, the man owns four other vehicles.
According to him, two of them are used by family members, and another car is equipped for racing.
According to the plaintiff, the fourth vehicle, a Ford Mondeo, is too bulky for city traffic and is only used by the family as a cargo and holiday vehicle.
The Frankfurt district court had awarded him the difference in the repair costs, but rejected the claims for compensation for use.
After an appeal, the case ended up before the Higher Regional Court.
That, too, clearly rejected the claim.
The use of the Ford Mondeo for city and office trips is "reasonable," the court ruled in a decision published on Monday.
The associated restriction of driving pleasure represents immaterial damage and is therefore not liable for compensation. The plaintiff could therefore have used the mid-range car for trips to work and for private trips, argued the Higher Regional Court.
(Az. 11 U 7/21)
The court thus decided that no compensation can be demanded if the broken sports car is temporarily not drivable after a car accident.
The fact that the damaged vehicle is a car from the significantly higher market segment does not change that.
The middle-class car is reasonable and leads "only to a restriction of driving pleasure," the court held.
tfb/AFP