a) In freight liability litigation, the question of who is ultimately entitled to compensation is irrelevant (following BGH, judgment of 20 April 1989 – I ZR 154/87, TranspR 1989, 413, 414 [juris nr. 16]).
b) The question of whether the requirements of § 435 HGB are met must also be examined even if only a basic judgment is issued under § 304 ZPO.
c) The clause in the general terms and conditions of business of a consignor according to which loaded vehicles are to be monitored during parking or parked where sufficient safety is ensured does not impose on the carrier any duties of care beyond the legal requirements.
d) No warning obligation for the consignor results from § 7a section 2 sentence 1 GüKG which may lead to a reduction of the claim for damages according to § 425 section 2 HGB, § 254 BGB.
e) If, in the absence of a qualified fault attributable to him within the meaning of § 435 HGB, the carrier’s liability is limited to the maximum amount of liability pursuant to § 431 HGB, contributory negligence on the part of the sender or consignee shall only affect his liability if his share of liability in relation to the total damage is less than the amount of liability under § 431 HGB.
f) The issuance of a basic judgement in accordance with § 304 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) can only be considered if it is established that contributory negligence does not lead to a complete exclusion of liability (following BGH, judgement of 14 October 2010 – I ZR 212/08, NJW 2011, 2138 marginal no. 35 – Mega-Kasten-Gewinnspiel, mwN).
g) On the conditions under which, in the case of the carrier’s unlimited liability under section 435 of the German Commercial Code (HGB), the issuance of a fundamental judgment may be considered.
BGH, Urt. v. 23.07.2020 – 1 ZR 119/19 – OLG Celle LG Verden
Bei einem Nässeschaden hat der Frachtführer substantiiert zu den konkreten Umständen und Ursachen des Schadens – insbesondere unter Benennung der beteiligten Personen, deren ladungsfähiger Anschrift und möglichst auch zur Zeit und zum Ort des Schadenseintrittes – vorzutragen, andernfalls ein qualifiziertes Verschulden des Frachtführers nach § 435 HGB zu vermuten steht, wegen einer Verletzung der sog. Recherchepflicht.
LG Bielefeld, Urt. v. 03.09.2019 – 24 S 5/19
In the case of damage caused by wetness, the carrier must provide a substantiated account of the specific circumstances and causes of the damage – in particular with the names of the persons involved, their summonable address and, if possible, also the time and place of occurrence of the damage – otherwise qualified fault on the part of the carrier pursuant to § 435 of the German Commercial Code (HGB) is to be presumed due to a violation of the so-called duty to investigate.
LG Bielefeld, Urt. v. 03.09.2019 – 24 S 5/19
= TransportR. 3 2020, S. 126 f
1. The clause of a transport order »Please make sure that there is sufficient insurance cover. (…) Only keep the truck in guarded parking lots, whose security correspond with the requirements of your insurance company. «It should be interpreted that parking in unguarded parking lots is not permitted.
2. The violation of the corresponding security requirements constitutes a qualified fault according to Art. 29 CMR.
Hans. OLG Bremen, Urt. v. 10.08.2018 – 2 U 7/18
= TransportR. 2 2020, S. 77 ff
In the case of a so-called incoming fraud, the sender does not have any claims against the carrier in accordance with Art. 17 ff. CMR even if the carrier cannot prove the delivery of the goods handed over to him for transportation to the freight contract recipient, since the sender is harmed in the same way would have occurred regardless of whether the goods were lost in the carrier’s custody or were delivered to the recipient.
OLG Frankfurt am Main, Urt. v. 11.09.2019 – 5 U 196/18
= TransportR. 1 2020, S. 21 ff
Unlike in the case of a so-called wrong delivery, in which the carrier is deceived about the right to receive, in the event of an incoming fraud against the sender, delivery takes place in the sense of Art. 17 para. 1 CMR with handover to the person named by the sender, their identity may also be faked (in delimitation / specification to OLG Hamm, judgment of 26.08.2013 – 1-18 U 164/12 [= TranspR 2013, 431] and OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of 05.06.2002 – 18 U 215/01)
OLG Koblenz, Urt. v. 09.05.2019 – 2 U 256/18
= TransportR. 1 2020, S. 24 ff
The guarantee of a P & 1 insurer based in England does not fulfill the requirements of § 108 (1) sentence 1 ZPO; especially taking into account the expected BREXIT.
LG Hamburg, Zwischenurt. v. 18.01.2019 – 415 HKO 55/18
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 465 ff
1. The contractual carrier has to allow the intentional embezzlement of the goods by a subcontractor commissioned via the freight exchange (Art. 3, 29 CMR).
2. The shipper shall not be accused of contributory negligence if he does not make any determinations concerning the registration number of the truck and the identity of the driver, at the place advised by the contracting carrier, at the time of collection of the goods and indicating to the shipper beforehand Carrier’s reference number appears.
Schleswig-Holsteinisches OLG, Urteil vom 18.12.2014 – 16 U 24/14
= TransportR. 4 2015, S. 157 ff
If the judgment of the first instance concerning the admissibility of the subsidiary intervention is admissible, an appeal against that decision is an immediate complaint.
OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 24.01.2019 – 6 U 277/15
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 460 ff
1. If a freight forwarder undertakes (even) to package the goods, works contract law will apply if it is not a subordinate, transport-related activity.
2. Defects of the packaging justify (then) claims according to § 634 No. 4 i.V.m. § 280 BGB, since upon detection of the defect (only) at the destination a supplementary performance of the contract is no longer possible and the purpose of the packaging has been omitted.
3. The handing over of the packaged goods to the following carrier does not justify acceptance i.S.d. § 640 BGB a.F.
OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 24.01.2019 – 6 U 62/16
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 456 ff
1. If an insurance broker establishes himself as an insurer when concluding an insurance contract, he must be treated as such.
2. Coverage under a liability insurance already exists with serious assertion of claims against the policyholder.
3. The permanent connection of a yacht to the shore power supply (during winter storage) is part of keeping or using a yacht.
OLG Celle, Urt. v. 13.12.2018 – 8 U 142/18
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 446 ff
1. The clause of a Freight Framework Agreement stating that loaded lorries are “to be parked there where adequate safety is ensured” shall be valid and interpreted as meaning that loaded lorries may be parked only where they are against access by thieves are effectively protected (eg fenced premises with access control, lockable buildings or garages).
2. The breach of corresponding security requirements and / or their failure to pass on grounds for a qualified fault according to § 435 HGB.
3. The objection of contributory negligence wg. Failed declaration of value can only be significant if the value of the shipment has been at least ten times the regular liability.
4. Inadmissible findings in a basic judgment (also) on the amount of the claim do not bind the appellate court (§ 318 ZPO), but are nevertheless not suitable to help an appeal to success.
OLG Celle Urt. v. 13.06.2019 – 11 U 6/19
= TransportR. 10 2019, S. 428 ff
1. If the liability of the carrier meets § 606 sentence 2 HGB a.F. with the non-liability of the carrier according to § 608 (1) Nr. 5 HGB a.F. together, a distribution of liability is to be made by reference to the legal concept of the 254 BGB.
2. On the requirements of an organ fault according to § 660 (3) HGB a.F.
3. When calculating the maximum amount of liability pursuant to § 660 (1) HGB a.F., the damage to be compensated must first be determined, then a reduction in the obligation to pay compensation pursuant to § 254 BGB must be taken into account and then (only) the correction of the substitute limit used.
Hans. OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 08.11.2018 – 6 U 222/16
= TransportR. 2 2019, S. 84 ff
For charges wrongly stated by a main customs office and refunded after appropriate court decision, taxes are to be paid from lis pendens.
Hessisches Finanzgericht, Urt. v. 23.07.2018 – 7 K 1579/17
= TransportR. 5 2019, S. 232 ff
1. If a negative declaratory action has been filed in the Netherlands, a claim for damages (in terms of time) pursuant to Art. 30 (1) EuGWO shall be suspended.
2. Even if the claims of the defendants there had already been transferred to the plaintiff in the proceedings in Germany prior to filing the lawsuit in the Netherlands, the proceedings are related to each other.
With note of lawyer Benjamin Grimme
OLG Düsseldorf, Beschl. v. 09.10.2018 – 1-18 W 15/18 (n.rk.)
= TransportR. 3 2019, S. 140 ff
A freight carrier who asserts claims under § 414 (1) HGB because of damage to his truck to the sender is not to be blamed for contributory negligence under § 414 (2) HGB if the driver – despite expressed doubts about the safe / reliable loading / Packaging – trusts in the sender’s declaration that the goods are always packed / loaded the same way.
With note of lawyer Benjamin Grimme
Saarl. OLG, Urt . v. 08.02.2017 – 5 U 29/16 (rechtskräftig)
= TransportR. 11|12 2017, S. 453 ff
An insurer who relies on the fraudulent misrepresentation of his policyholder in order to justify his exemption from performance, has the intention to deceive of the policyholder.
However, the policyholder has a secondary burden of presentation; an intention to deceive is therefore to be assumed if the policyholder is too does not make a presentation in the relevant circumstances.
OLG Frankfurt am Main, Hinweisbeschl. v. 14.03.2018
und Zurückweisungsbeschl. v. 09.04.2018 – 3 U 178/16
= TransportR. 10 2018, S. 386 ff
Clauses in a transport order requiring the carrier to take breaks only on guarded and video-monitored parking spaces are effectively agreed upon when the carriage is carried out, as neither surprising nor inappropriate.
LG Bremen, Urt. v. 05.06.2018 – 110169/17
= TransportR. 10 2018, S. 390 ff
Decisive for the calculation of the regular liability according to § 431 HGB is the weight of the freight item and not the weight.
AG Bremen, Urt. v. 01.02.2018 – 10 C 227/17
= TransportR. 6 2018, S. 250 ff
The parking of a transport vehicle loaded with groupage in an unguarded commercial area justifies (even on weekends and even if the carrier is aware that there are easily deductible goods under the groupage) not easily the charge of a qualified fault.
OLG Nürnberg, Beschl. v. 14.08.2017 – 12 U 2204/15
= TransportR. 3 2018, S. 118 ff
The meticulous handling of the TLMV is essential to ward off significant risks to the health of consumers.
OLG Düsseldorf, Urt. v. 08.11.2017 – 1-18 U 173115
= TransportR. 5 2018, S. 197 ff
However, even in the case of an application for assessment, the applicant must state and prove that damage has been caused in the custody of the carrier.
Art. 3, 17, 29 CMR; § 264 Nr. 2 ZPO
Hanseatisches OLG Hamburg, Urt. v. 05.04.2018 – 6 U 225/16
= TransportR. 7|8 2018, S. 303 ff
The overturning of a truck in strong winds without the occurrence of further circumstances justifies no qualified fault of the carrier.
Art. 29, 32 CMR
Hanseatisches OLG Hamburg, Beschl. v. 07.03.2018 – 6 U 40/16
= TransportR. 7|8 2018, S. 301 ff
Schäden, verursacht gelegentlich einer Zollkontrolle unterfallen nicht dem Deckungsausschluss des „Eingriffes von hoher Hand“ in der Transportversicherung.
Bundesgerichtshof, Beschl. v. 22.02.2018 – IZ ZR 318/16
= TransportR. 2018, S. 207 ff (m. Anmerkung Riemer)
Unvermeidbarkeit eines Schadens am Gut bei Reifenbrand
OLG Hamm, Urt. v. 21.04.2016 – Az. 18 U 17/14
(§ 426 HGB, § 7 II StVG a.F., GüKG)
RdTW 3/2017, S. 111 ff
VVG §§ 28 Abs. 2 S. 2, 115, 117 Abs. 3; BGB §§ 306, 307
VersicherungsRecht 2015 Heft 3
Straßentransport / CMR
Art. 17 Abs. 2 CMR
OLG Köln, Urt. v. 25.08.2016 – 3 U 28/16
Urteil vom 28.08.2016
Haftung des Frachtführers bei vereinbarter Anwendung der CMR
BGB §§ 164, 167, 242, 254, 280 I; CMR Art. 1, 2, Art. 17 I,
11 und IV lit. a und b, 18 II 1,41; EGBGB Art. 28 IV; HGB §§ 427 I Nr. 1, 452, 452 a; Rom-I-VO Art. 28
BGH, Urteil vom 28. Februar 2013 – I ZR 180/11
Beweis der Ablieferung des Gutes an bevollmächtigte Person
CMR Art. 17 I, 20 I; GG Art. 103 I
BGH, Beschluss vom 6. Februar 2013 – I ZR 22/12
WA Art. 22, 25
OLG Köln, Urteil vom 15.2.2005 (22 U 145/04)
§§ 435, 452 HGB
OLG Düsseldorf, Urteil vom 12.12.2001 – 18 U 79/01