OGH: No compensation in case of failure to wear a seat belt

May 27, 2022 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) ruled that the obligation to wear a seat belt in motor vehicles is intended to prevent personal injury, but not damage to the vehicle.

The plaintiff operates a bus company. The defendant was a passenger on a bus journey. He left his seat during the journey and fell against the windscreen of the bus during a braking manoeuvre, which was damaged as a result and had to be replaced.

The bus company now sought compensation from the passenger. The driver had pointed out the obligation to wear a seat belt before the journey. The defendant had left his seat during the journey in contravention of this instruction.

Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal dismissed the claim.

The OGH stated:

Section 106 para 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act (Kraftfahrtgesetz, KFG) obliges vehicle occupants to use the seat belt. The violation of this obligation only constitutes contributory negligence (in case of death or injury of the user) with regard to a possible claim for damages for pain and suffering. In addition, Sec. 106 KFG is a safety law within the meaning of Sec. 1311 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB). Its purpose is not only to prevent injury to the driver, but also not to endanger the person being transported.

The law does not state that the protective purpose of the provision also includes the prevention of property damage to the vehicle. The wording of Sec. 106 para 2 sentence 2 KFG rather describes the rights of the person who neglects this duty. The privileged position in relation to this person as the injured party applies to all other areas of liability. Even if the person who violates the obligation to wear a seat belt is not the injured party but (as in this case) the person causing the damage, the protective purpose of the provision is not to be extended beyond the personal injuries addressed therein to include damage to property.

In the absence of a connection of illegality, the OGH therefore also rejected liability.

OGH 2 Ob 130/21p (27.01.2022)