GER: Burden of Proof for Damage to Hired Cars

Nov 22, 2024 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

Who bears the burden of proof that a hired car was in an undamaged condition before it was taken over by the hirer? This question has been considered by the Regional Court of Muenster, Germany.

In the case at hand, a customer had hired a Sprinter van. Some pre-existing damage to the interior of the vehicle was noted on the rental agreement by an employee of the rental company. Rather than inspecting the vehicle himself, the customer relied on the information in the system. When the van was returned, the rental company informed him of previously undocumented external damage and demanded payment of over EUR 11,000. Pictures of the van were presented to the customer as evidence. However, he denied being responsible for the damage.

In its judgement, the Regional Court of Muenster has now accepted the customer’s arguments.

The damage for which the rental car company claims compensation was undisputed but had not been mentioned in the hire contract. However, nothing can be inferred from this.

According to the court, it is unusual for a customer to take over a hire car with visible external damage when only internal defects are documented in the hire contract. However, the customer had plausibly described how he had regarded the defects as a normal condition of the vehicle and assumed that the rental car company was aware of them.

In fact, the extent of the damage was not particularly serious. It did not appear to be unusual for a rental vehicle.

In the present case, however, the rental car company was unable to prove that the Sprinter was undamaged before it was taken over by the customer. According to the general principles of the burden of proof, the burden of proof lies with the company.

The hirer’s obligation stated in the rental agreement to check the vehicle for damage prior to departure and to report any unrecorded damage to the handover point or the service hotline specified in the contract prior to departure does not affect the burden of proof and does not result in a reversal of the burden of proof.

Muenster District Court, 10 O 52/24 (11 October 2024)