News

 

The following situation occurred in Austria, in which the “small gasoline clause” was very clearly applied. Person X was traveling on a bus line. The bus in question had to brake heavily due to the traffic, so that the passenger concerned was unable to stop and was thrown against a window. It was broken. The bus company subsequently demanded compensation from the injuring party, as the window was ultimately broken by him. The case went before the Austrian Supreme Court, Vienna (OGH) with the case number 7 Ob 194/23i. In its ruling of 22/11/2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the “small petrol clause” in personal liability insurance also applies if the policyholder is injured while driving a bus.

The bus company was therefore denied the claim it wanted to assert against the personal liability insurance. OGH and private liability insurance agreed that the damage was caused by using the motor vehicle. Therefore, personal liability insurance does not come into play because the “small petrol clause” only applies when the vehicle is in use. Damage caused by using a motor vehicle is then excluded. The damage was caused by a typical risk of driving a motor vehicle in road traffic - braking is an everyday occurrence. Therefore, no fault or contributory negligence can be attributed to the passenger. The decision is highly relevant in the sense that personal liability insurance simply does not come into play in such cases - the motor vehicle liability insurance alone is then responsible. According to the traffic law working group of the German Bar Association (DAV), anyone who causes damage as a passenger or passenger in such a case should always invoke the “small gasoline clause” with regard to liability so that the private liability insurance is not charged.

Incidentally, on the other hand, the absurd requirement to go to the toilet does not exist either. A traveller wanted to go on vacation by bus - but the planned toilet breaks could not be kept due to the volume of traffic and the bus toilet was not allowed to be used due to the corona pandemic at that time. As the traveller suffered health problems after the bus trip due to these circumstances, he went to court. In vain - the Frankfurt Regional Court did not grant his request in its ruling of 20/9/2023 and file number 2-24 O 62/21.

He was not entitled to damages and compensation for pain and suffering as the volume of traffic, which had prevented him from taking regular toilet breaks, contributed to the general risk.

Source: Pixabay/ bus-2844406_1280