{"id":2375,"date":"2021-09-06T12:26:06","date_gmt":"2021-09-06T10:26:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/?page_id=2375"},"modified":"2026-07-15T16:20:20","modified_gmt":"2026-07-15T14:20:20","slug":"bgh","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/","title":{"rendered":"Decisions of the BGH"},"content":{"rendered":"

a) Items used by the sender (such as packaging or means of loading) that first make transport possible, facilitate it, or secure it are also to be regarded as goods being transported within the meaning of \u00a7 407 (1), \u00a7 425 (1) of the German Commercial Code (HGB).
\nb) In the case of qualified fault on the part of the carrier, the party entitled to compensation has a right of election as to whether to claim compensation for value under \u00a7 429 HGB or to base its claim for damages on \u00a7 435 HGB in conjunction with \u00a7\u00a7 249, 252 of the German Civil Code (BGB). If the party entitled to compensation claims compensation for value under \u00a7 429 (2) HGB, it must accept the exemptions from and limitations of liability that accompany the standard liability regime even in the case of qualified fault on the part of the carrier (continuing, among others, the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgment of 30 September 2010 – I ZR 39\/09, TranspR 2010, 437 [juris para. 48]).
\nc) Where a carrier is obliged to pay compensation for value under \u00a7 429 (2) HGB, the determination of the value of the goods under \u00a7 429 (3) sentence 1 HGB must be based on the trade level (commercial stage) to which the injured party belongs (continuing the case law of the BGH, judgment of 27 February 2003 – I ZR 145\/00, TranspR 2003, 298 [juris para. 57]). If a means of loading that is to be regarded as goods being transported in the broader sense (here: a trailer used by the sender for transport and leased from a third-party company) is damaged, the decisive factor is how the value of the goods presents itself from the perspective of the owner of the means of loading.
\nd) The “other costs” that the carrier must reimburse under \u00a7 432 sentence 1 HGB do not include costs that arose because the goods were wholly or partially lost or damaged. This also covers costs incurred for the recovery (salvage) of the goods being transported. The purpose pursued by the recovery operation is immaterial in this respect. The limitation of liability provided for in \u00a7 432 sentence 2 HGB also applies, pursuant to \u00a7 434 (1) HGB, to any claims for reimbursement of expenses under \u00a7\u00a7 677, 683 sentence 1, \u00a7 670 BGB arising from a legitimate agency without authorization (Gesch\u00e4ftsf\u00fchrung ohne Auftrag).<\/strong>
\nBGH, Urteil vom 02.07.2026 – 1 ZR 134\/25 \u2013 OLG Hamm LG Bielefeld<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

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]).
\nb) The question of whether the requirements of \u00a7 435 HGB are met must also be examined even if only a basic judgment is issued under \u00a7 304 ZPO.
\nc) 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.
\nd) No warning obligation for the consignor results from \u00a7 7a section 2 sentence 1 G\u00fcKG which may lead to a reduction of the claim for damages according to \u00a7 425 section 2 HGB, \u00a7 254 BGB.
\ne) If, in the absence of a qualified fault attributable to him within the meaning of \u00a7 435 HGB, the carrier’s liability is limited to the maximum amount of liability pursuant to \u00a7 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 \u00a7 431 HGB.
\nf) The issuance of a basic judgement in accordance with \u00a7 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).
\ng) 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.<\/strong>
\nBGH, Urteil vom 23.07.2020 – 1 ZR 119\/19 \u2013 OLG Celle LG Verden<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

a) Delay damage within the meaning of Art. 23 Para. 5 CMR, which coincides with an additional damage to goods within the meaning of Art. 23 Para. 1 CMR, without there being a causal connection between the two damages, is cumulative in addition to the claim for damages eligible for replacement due to damage or loss of the transported goods.
\nb) The debtor of a claim whose total creditorship exists in accordance with Section 428 of the German Civil Code (BGB) can in principle also offset against a counterclaim to which he is entitled only from one or one of the joint creditors. The necessary similarity between the claim of the joint creditors and the claim of the debtor against one of the joint creditors is missing, however, if the creditor against whom the counterclaim of the debtor is directed can demand performance either from himself or from a third party and he has not yet exercised his or her right to vote in accordance with Section 263 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB).
\nc) Within the scope of the CMR, insofar as the consignor as well as the recipient is entitled to claim under Art a total belief, whereby the sender can optionally request performance to himself or to the recipient.<\/strong>
\nBGH, Urteil vom 19.09.2019 \u2013 I ZR 64\/18<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

a) The provision of Art. 31 Para. 2 CMR, which establishes a suspension of lis pendens and the objection of legal force for the same disputes in proceedings between the same parties for the same matter, does not regulate the conditions under which a legal dispute is suspended with regard to another procedure can be. If the first pending proceedings have not yet ended and the question of the later enforceability of the decision to be taken therein has therefore not yet been clarified, if proceedings are pending before courts of two Member States of the European Union, instead of the action being dismissed as inadmissible, there will be a suspension in corresponding application of Art. 29 para. 1 Brussel-la-VO into consideration.
\nb) A new action for “the same thing” within the meaning of Art. 31, Paragraph 2, Clause 1 of the CMR is also involved if the pending proceedings are negative declaratory actions and the new proceedings are performance actions and both proceedings are pending before the courts of different member states of the European Union (task BGH, judgment of November 20, 2003 – 1 ZR 294\/02, BGHZ 157, 66).
\nc) Since the CMR, which generally takes precedence over the Brussel-la-VO, does not contain any provision for the suspension of a procedure due to a factual connection with another procedure, Art. 30 Brussel-la-VO can be applied in the scope of the Brussels-la-VO.
\nd) In the proceedings of the appeal against a suspension decision, which is at the discretion of the court of first instance, the court of appeal may only revoke the decision of the suspension of first instance if there are errors of judgment; it is not authorized to substitute its discretion for the discretion granted to the first court. There is also an error of judgment if the court of first instance has not exercised its discretion..<\/strong>
\nBGH, Beschluss vom 25.07.2019 \u2013 I ZB 82\/18<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Damage, occasionally<\/em> caused by a customs inspection, is not excluded from the exclusion of “intervention by a high hand” in the transport insurance.<\/strong>
\nBGH, Beschluss vom 22.02.2018 \u2013 IZ ZR 318\/16
\n= TransportR. 2018, S. 207 ff (m. Anmerkung Riemer)<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Claims settlement through insurance brokers <\/strong>
\nUWG \u00a7 3a nF (\u00a7 4 Nr. 11 aF); RDG \u00a7\u00a7 2, 3, 5
\nBGH, Urteil vom 14.01.2016 \u2013 I ZR 107\/14<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Road transport \/ CMR<\/strong>
\nCMR Art. 17 Abs. 1 und 4 Buchst. c, Abs. 5, Art. 23 Abs. 3 und 29
\nBGH, Urteil vom 19.03.2015 \u2013 I ZR 190\/13<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Road transport \/ CMR<\/strong>
\nCMR Art. 17 Abs. 1, Art. 29 Abs. 1; HGB \u00a7 435; BGB \u00a7\u00a7 242 Cd, 368; ZPO \u00a7\u00a7 416, 440
\nBGH, Urteil vom 22.05.2014 \u2013 I ZR 109\/13<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Road transport \/ CMR<\/strong>
\nArt. 1, 2, 17 Abs.l und 4lit. a, Art. 4 41 CMR; \u00a7 254 BGB
\nBGH, Urteil vom 28.02.2013 \u2013 I ZR 180\/11<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Liability of the carrier with the agreed application of the CMR<\/strong>
\nBGB \u00a7\u00a7 164, 167, 242, 254, 280 I; CMR Art. 1, 2, Art. 17 I,
\n11 und IV lit. a und b, 18 II 1,41; EGBGB Art. 28 IV; HGB \u00a7\u00a7 427 I Nr. 1, 452, 452 a; Rom-I-VO Art. 28
\nBGH, Urteil vom 28.02.2013 – I ZR 180\/11<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Proof of delivery of the goods to an authorized person<\/strong>
\nCMR Art. 17 I, 20 I; GG Art. 103 I
\nBGH, Beschluss vom 06.02.2013 \u2013 I ZR 22\/12<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Road transport<\/strong>
\nArt. 23 Abs. 1 und 3, Art. 29 Abs. 1 CMR
\nBGH, Urteil vom 30.09.2010 \u2013 I ZR 39\/09<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

General freight law<\/strong>
\n\u00a7 3 PostG 1997; Art. 26 Nr. 3.1 Postpaket\u00fcbereinkommen 1994
\nBGH, Urteil vom 03.03.2005 \u2013 I ZR 273\/02<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

If a sender of goods has positive knowledge that the consignment given for carriage contains so-called prohibited goods according to the general terms and conditions of the carrier, and if he does not inform the carrier about this before the contract is concluded, this can also be the case in the event of a loss of the consignment in the context of the assessment of the causal contributions lead to a complete exclusion of the liability of the transport company.<\/strong>
\nBGH, Urteil vom16.07.2006 \u2013 I ZR 245\/03<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Road transport<\/strong>
\nArt. 17, 29 CMR; \u00a7 254 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BGB
\nBGH, Urteil vom 20.01.2005 \u2013 I ZR 95\/01<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

a) Items used by the sender (such as packaging or means of loading) that first make transport possible, facilitate it, or secure it are also to be regarded as goods being transported within the meaning of \u00a7 407 (1), \u00a7 425 (1) of the German Commercial Code (HGB). b) In the case of qualified fault […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":10,"menu_order":10,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nGrimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen, Transportrecht\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen, Transportrecht\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Grimme & Partner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-15T14:20:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/\",\"name\":\"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-06T10:26:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-15T14:20:20+00:00\",\"description\":\"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen, Transportrecht\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[[\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/\"]]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Referenzentscheidungen\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Entscheidungen des BGH\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Grimme & Partner\",\"description\":\"Lawyers\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Grimme & Partner\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/grimme-und-partner-rechtsanwaelte-logo1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/grimme-und-partner-rechtsanwaelte-logo1.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":62,\"caption\":\"Grimme & Partner\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen","description":"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen, Transportrecht","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen","og_description":"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen, Transportrecht","og_url":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/","og_site_name":"Grimme & Partner","article_modified_time":"2026-07-15T14:20:20+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/","url":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/","name":"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-09-06T10:26:06+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-15T14:20:20+00:00","description":"Grimme & Partner Rechtsanw\u00e4lte, Hamburg, Referenzentscheidungen, Transportrecht","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":[["https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/"]]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/bgh\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Referenzentscheidungen","item":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/referenzentscheidungen\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Entscheidungen des BGH"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/","name":"Grimme & Partner","description":"Lawyers","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Grimme & Partner","url":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/grimme-und-partner-rechtsanwaelte-logo1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/04\/grimme-und-partner-rechtsanwaelte-logo1.png","width":300,"height":62,"caption":"Grimme & Partner"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2375"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2375"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2375\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2864,"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2375\/revisions\/2864"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.grimme-partner.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}