Liability for a partly fateful, partly caused by treatment error health damage on the occasion of a birth

The plaintiff suffered severe damage to his health in connection with his birth. Therefore, he claimed the treating gynecologist, the midwife, a pediatric nurse and the carrier of the document hospital for damages.

Im ersten Teil des Verfahrens erging zum Anspruchsgrund ein rechtskräftiges Grund- und Teilendurteil des Oberlandesgerichts. In diesem wurde festgestellt, dass die Beklagten als Gesamtschuldner verpflichtet sind, dem Kläger sämtliche Schäden zu ersetzen, die dem Kläger XCHARXanlässlich und aufgrund der Behandlung durch die Beklagten nach seiner GeburtXCHARX entstanden sind und noch entstehen werden. Im vorliegenden Verfahrensabschnitt ging es um die Höhe des dem Kläger zustehenden Schadensersatzes. Das Oberlandesgericht hat insoweit entschieden, dass sich aus dem vorangegangenen Grundurteil eine Bindungswirkung dahin ergebe, dass die Beklagten nur für die Schäden hafteten, die dem Kläger nach seiner Geburt entstanden seien. Insoweit sei der von den Beklagten verursachte Schadensanteil auf höchstens 20 % zu begrenzen. Continue reading

Single judge decision in medical liability cases does not constitute a violation of the statutory judge

a) According to § 538 para. 1 ZPO, the Appeals Tribunal must in principle gather the necessary evidence and decide on the case itself. Whether or not the proceedings in the first instance suffer from a material defect which exceptionally allows a remittal to the first instance court under Paragraph 538 2 No. 1 ZPO is to be judged solely on the basis of the substantive legal position of the court of first instance ,

b) If the business allocation plan does not provide for any special jurisdiction of a Civil Chamber according to § 348 para. 1 no. 2 e. ZPO, a decision by the single judge is not due to the fact that doctor-liability matters are in principle of the full staff have been a violation of the right to the statutory judge.

BGH JUDGMENT VI ZR 325 / 11 of 14. May 2013

XPO § 141 para 1, § 448, § 348 para. 1 letter e, § 538 para. 1, para. 2 sentence 1 no. 1, GC Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 Continue reading

Prescription of birth defects in case of grossly negligent ignorance of the performance department of the insurance and non-information of the regress department

A presumption of limitation according to § 199 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 BGB setting in running grossly negligent ignorance is not given in cases of recourse, if the employees of the performance department of the insurance of the injured party in a division of labor no initiatives to investigate the damage unfold and therefore the claim the employees of the Regressab-Division did not become aware.
BGH, judgment of the 28. February 2012 - VI ZR 9 / 11 - KG Berlin
LG Berlin Continue reading

GTranslate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!