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.
The VI responsible for the Medical Liability Act, among others. Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has rejected the appeal of the plaintiff. In the basic judgment, the binding effect has only been to establish that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damage to health resulting from the negligent postmenminal negligence of the defendants, which contributed to the injury of the plaintiff. The court of appeal has limited the liability of the defendant on this basis without any legal error to a liability share of 20%. Although co-causation, in terms of liability, is in principle equal to the sole cause in its entirety. Exceptionally, this is not the case if it is established that co-causation has only led to a definable part of the damage. Such an identifiable part of the damage has been determined by the Court of Appeal. The defendants then provided proof that the major part of the damage to health did not occur in the period for which they are liable for damages after the final basic judgment, but was already present at that time. After birth, irreparable damage to health had already occurred without a treatment error, which was compounded by errors in postpartum care and treatment. The fatal health damage incurred during the birth of the court of appeal has, after expert advice with a definite share of at least 80% accepted and therefore limited the liability of the defendant error-free to a maximum of 20%. In addition to the appraisal of the experts, the Court of Appeal was able to draw on further concrete indications of the "medical distinction of the claims". According to the experts, the plaintiff would certainly have been a case of nursing even when required to be transferred to the pediatric clinic immediately after birth, and was out of the question for the working process. He would not have been able to lead an independent life. The mental impairment would have existed in any case. Due to these circumstances, the assumption of a definable part of the damage to health was not objectionable under revision law.
Urteil vom 20. Mai 2014 XCHARX VI ZR 187/13
LG Kempten XCHARX 3 O 2613/92 XCHARX Urteil vom 20. Januar 2011
OLG München XCHARX 24 U 671/11 XCHARX Urteil vom 28. März 2013