Hürden der Rechtsprechung
Der Verbau unzulässiger Abschalteinrichtungen begründet die Haftung eines Fahrzeugherstellers nach §§ 31, 831, 826 BGB wegen vorsätzlich sittenwidriger Schädigung von Fahrzeugkäufern. Das hat der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) mit Urteil vom 25.05.2020 gegen Volkswagen entschieden¹. Ob auch der Einsatz von Thermofenstern sittenwidrig ist, ist streitig, obwohl sie vom EuGH und vom BGH ebenfalls als unzulässige Abschalteinrichtungen angesehen werden². Die Kläger dieser Verfahren hatten und haben erhebliche Schwierigkeiten, die verantwortlichen Vorstände und Repräsentanten des Unternehmens zu benennen und ihre, den Tatbestand der vorsätzlichen sittenwidrigen Schädigung erfüllenden objektiven und subjektiven Beiträge zubeweisen.

Unter dem Mangel eines Produkts versteht man im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch die qualitative Abweichung (Ist-Beschaffenheit) von der vereinbarten Spezifikation (SollBeschaffenheit). Zur Soll-Beschaffenheit des Produkts gehört -ebenfalls im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch- auch die Eignung des spezifizierten Produkts für seinen vereinbarten Verwendungszweck, also seine Brauchbarkeit für die Zwecke des Kunden. Die fehlende Eignung ist in der Regel ein Mangel des Produkts...

The diesel emission scandal has led to a flood of legal proceedings in Germany. The Eighth Panel of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), in Case VIII ZR 225/17, surprisingly indicated in a guidance order (issued despite the case having been settled out-of-court by the parties) that it may deem illegal defeat devices as a quality defect within the meaning of German contract of purchase law. 

Legal considerations and future technologies: The intention of this presentation from a workshop at the “Operational Safe Systems & Semiconductors Safety Conference” of Intrepid Delta on 24 September 2018 in Berlin is to alert the awareness that new technologies and their application must respect legal requirements and new legislation Europe. This is a matter of burden of proof to be borne by the applicants of new technologies.

On 4th of July 2018 the Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, amending Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 and repealing Directive 2007/46/EC has entered into force.

It is -incorrectly- somehow common sense in the automotive industry top down, that in most cases the roote cause for a recall or a service campaign can be allocated at the (sole) responsibility of the supplier of a component or a system. This view is primarily recourse driven rather than based on serious technical analysis and legal assessment of responsibilities in terms of burden of proof. This system of the terms & conditions and other contractual documents of OEMs and 1st TIER suppliers pave the way to collect costs for -alleged- damages from suppliers on a lower level and to shift responsibilities for accidents and injuries to those suppliers. 

The debate on so called “certificates of conformity” and their legal significance plays a major role in determining the legal claims a buyer may have against a vehicle manufacturer. Regulatory acts of the European Union such as the Framework Directive 2007/46/EC on type approval of motor vehicles provide rules regarding the “certificates of conformity”. The certificates’ legal integration into domestic sales law comes with uncertainties. If national law is, however, interpreted consistently with Union law, these “certificates of conformity” give rise to direct rights held by the buyer. Arzt and Harke have commented in detail on this issue in their article on EU certificates of conformity and their

8D Reports are widely used in the automotive industry to handle customer complaints and in many ways, 8D Reports are useful documents. From a legal perspective, however, they also bear risks. The Reports are compiled by the supplier. The issues begin with the observation that 8D Reports are meant to present “facts”. In my experience, this means that courts will deem the information presented in 8D Reports as the legal facts of a case and allocate the responsibility for technical problems accordingly. Courts will usually consider the established facts as acknowledgements of responsibility in a legal sense from which the respective party to the proceedings will hardly ever recover. The argument that it is not the 8D Reports’ objective to make legally binding declarations will not be heard by the courts because these documents represent an integral part of the contract between the parties that is aimed at determining root causes and corrective measures. Any technical and legal consequences are based thereon.

It is -incorrectly- somehow common sense in the automotive industry top down, that in most cases the roote cause for a recall or a service campaign can be allocated at the (sole) responsibility of the supplier of a component or a system. This view is primarily recourse driven rather than based on serious technical analysis and legal assessment of responsibilities in terms of burden of proof. This system of the terms & conditions and other contractual documents of OEMs and 1st TIER suppliers pave the way to collect costs for -alleged- damages from suppliers on a lower level and to shift responsibilities for accidents and injuries to those suppliers.