No seat belt for wheelchair users in pedestrian traffic

Federal Constitutional Court: Handicapped has no blame for accident
Karlsruhe (jur). Wheelchair users do not need to strap themselves in their wheelchairs with a lap belt in pedestrian traffic. If they are hit in their wheelchair unbangeschnallt when crossing a street by a car, they must not be a possible compensation for suffering therefore not be reduced because of "contributory negligence," the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe in a decision published on Thursday, July 7, 2016 (Az. 1 BvR 742/16).

Thus, a disabled student was right, who is dependent on an electric wheelchair because of muscle atrophy, a progressive muscle wasting. The wheelchair had a lap belt, so that the disabled person can be strapped in the car and transported safely.

No seatbelts for wheelchair users. Image: Minerva Studio - fotolia

In November 2014, when the student was not strapped into his wheelchair on the way to school without crossing a street, he was hit by a car. He fell out of the wheelchair and suffered a left-sided skull bruise.

From the accident causer he demanded compensation. In the dispute stood 700 euros.

The District Court Bretten in Baden-Württemberg confirmed the claim for pain and suffering. However, because of "contributory negligence" it reduced the payment by a third. The student would have had to buckle up with the lap belt in the wheelchair.

Although the general buckling in a wheelchair in pedestrian traffic is not mandatory, but there is also the obligation to prevent possible damage and injury. Here, the expert found that the student belted had not fallen out of the wheelchair.

The student was discriminated against with this decision because of his disability. If he must always buckle up, his freedom of action is limited. He could not unbuckle himself and then always depend on the help of others, so the reasoning of his constitutional complaint.

In its decision of 20 June 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the constitutional complaint was "manifestly justified". There is a disadvantage due to the disability.

A contributory negligence according to the law is to be accepted in principle, if the care is taken to disregard, "which a decent and reasonable man to avoid own damage applies". However, it is not apparent here that a "decent and intelligent, wheelchair-bound person" always wears the lap belt on the wheelchair.

The lap belt serves solely to secure the wheelchair user during car transport. The mere presence of the belt therefore does not lead to a higher duty of care of the disabled person in pedestrian traffic. This would be a disadvantage to road users without disabilities and also to wheelchair users who - legally - have no lap belt on their wheelchair. The district court must now decide on the compensation for pain. fle / mwo