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...

Insurance contracts for product liability insurance contain two important exclusions of coverage: the exclusion of products that have been tested insufficiently (testing clause) and the exclusion due to deliberate deviation from written agreements.
In both cases, the insurer will not, for understandable reasons, provide coverage, even if all other policy conditions are fulfilled, which is usually the case.
The insurer does not want to cover development risks that are, for the most part, avoidable or contractual violations such as deviations from statutory provisions or scope statements. Both clauses have a long history, but need a rethink under the conditions of new technologies.The testing clause, in particular, with its reference to the technological “state of the art” begs revision because the term “state of the art” is based on experience and knowledge from the past. It does not comprehensively encompass innovation in, nor provide clarity about the actual safety of, advanced vehicle systems and their electronic components, to give just one example.
Moreover, European legislation, with the new Regulation 2019/2144 of November 27, 2019, applicable to the entire European type approval law as from July 6, 2022, will require precisely that – the safety of any advanced vehicle system and new propulsion system – despite the fact that the necessary statutory requirements are yet to be created. Vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers will bear the burden of proof in this context. This paper will examine these issues.

Eine deutsche Fassung erhalten Sie hier.

Dieser Artikel ist nur in englisch verfügbar

Deutsche Version des Artikels ist unter Publikationen zu finden

Through Directive 2019/770/EU “on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services” and Directive 2019/771/EU “on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods”, both of May 22, 2019 and passed by the European Parliament and the Council, the digital world will enter European legislation on the sale of consumer products.

There are tension between Technology and Law, however, they cannot be separated. Each technical information has a legal relevance and vice-versa. The publication “Technik und Recht sind untrennbar” (“Technology and Law are inseparable”), published in the journal of the German Society of Quality (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Qualität e.V., DGQ) in April 2019, deals with the tension.

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