Vehicles from the Netherlands - Full Crash -

Real Accident - For Thinking





 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

 More comments on the Fotokonvult

BGH again decides on the necessary expert costs after an unintended traffic accident by judgment of 11.2.2014 - VI ZR 225/13 -.


 THE BUNDESGERICHTIN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLEJUDGMENTVI ZR 225/13 Delivered in:. 11th of February 2014In the litigationThe question of the need for expert costs after a traffic accident.BGH, judgment of 11 February 2014 - VI ZR 225/13 - LG Darmstadt. AG SeligenstadtThe VI. Civil Division of the Bundesgerichtshof brought an action against the hearing on 21 January 2014 by Judge Galke, Judge Zoll, Judge Diederichsen, Judge Pauge and Richter OffenlochHereby rules:The judgment of the 21st Civil Chamber of the District Court of Darmstadt of April 17, 2013, in the cost point and in so far as the Landgericht appealed to the plaintiff against the dismissal of the action for payment of further appraiser costs in the amount of 87,65 € together with interest and, in accordance with the judgment of the District Court of Seligenstadt of 5 October 2012, ordered the defendant to pay further expert costs of € 56.90 plus interest.In the scope of the annulment, the matter is remitted to the Court of Appeals for the new trial and decision, including the costs of the revision procedure.The parties' further appeal is dismissed.By lawFacts:The parties dispute the replacement of remaining expert and legal costs as a result of a traffic accident.In February 2012 the plaintiff was involved with his vehicle in a traffic accident with the defendant, for whose damages the defendant has to pay 100%. The plaintiff brought in a motor vehicle damage claim, according to which the necessary repair costs around 1.050 € plus VAT. In order to reimburse the expert opinion, the expert paid the applicant an amount of EUR 534.55, broken down as follows:Preparation and preparation of expert opinion € 260,00Payment in advance, credit card, PayPal, sofortueberweisung.de (plus € 2, - postal fee at cash on delivery)Telephone / computer equipment, office material, postage, writing costs € 75,00Travel expenses / time (51 km x Euro 1.80 max. € 100,00) € 91,80Additional Intermediate sum without VAT € 449,20VAT 19.0% € 85.35Total VAT including VAT € 534.55The liability insurance of the defendant regulated the costs in the amount of 390 €. The remainder of € 144.55 is the subject of the action. In addition, the applicant is claiming that the applicant has already paid a pre-litigation fee of EUR 74.97 (including costs of attorneys' fees) and seeks a declaration that the defendant is obliged to pay interest of 5 percentage points on the court costs incurred by the applicant Above the base rate for the period from the receipt of the court fees paid up to the date of receipt of the cost-assessment application in accordance with the cost quotation to be assessed.The District Court dismissed the action. On the admissible appeal of the plaintiff, the Landgericht also ordered the defendant to pay further appraisal costs of € 56.90 plus further pre-trial costs of € 43.31, in addition to interest, with rejection of the appeal. With the revision approved by the regional court, the applicant continues to pursue his original request. The aim of the adjudication of the defendants is the restoration of the judicial review.Reasons for decision:I.The appeal court essentially stated that the injured party is normally entitled to commission a qualified expert of his choice to draw up the damage report. The motor vehicle expert does not exceed the limits of legally permissible pricing by the fact that he makes a reasonable flat rate of the fee based on the amount of the damage. The courts could, however, by means of expert assistance or by way of damage assessment pursuant to § 287 ZPO, make findings which show that the amount of the expert costs claimed exceeded the necessary production expenditure within the meaning of § 249 para. 2 BGB. In this respect, both the basic salary as well as the ancillary costs could be based on the results of the survey of the amount of the motor vehicle auditor's report 2010/2011 by the Federal Association of the self-employed and independent

No comments: