Right of way is not enough: court finds speeders largely liable.

In this particular case, a motorist had to bear the majority of his own accident damage despite his right-of-way entitlement. Of the roughly €19,500 he claimed after the collision, the court granted him only 20 percent. For the remaining 80 percent, he had to cover it himself.

The accident occurred at an intersection. A car was traveling on a priority road, another driver wanted to turn from a secondary road. At first glance, the matter seems clear: Whoever comes from a side street must observe the traffic on the priority road and may only enter if no hazard arises. Accordingly, the owner of the right-of-way vehicle argued as well. The opposing party countered and claimed that the car on the priority road had veered noticeably shortly before the collision.

Black box analysis

To clarify the course of the accident, the court commissioned an expert. In doing so, the data stored in the vehicle were also evaluated. The alleged swerves could not be proven. Instead, another circumstance came to light that became decisive for the later decision. The so-called Black Box analysis showed that the driver with the right of way was traveling immediately before the accident at speeds of up to 131 km/h. At the accident site, only 70 km/h were allowed. Thus there was not a minor overrun, but almost a doubling of the permissible speed.

Precisely this circumstance fundamentally altered the legal assessment. Although the Regional Court found that the turning driver had disregarded the right of way, the substantial speed violation by the driver with the right of way weighed more heavily than the right-of-way violation.

More than twice the permitted speed

A yielding driver must, of course, observe traffic on the priority road. However, he cannot reasonably expect that a vehicle is approaching at nearly double the permitted speed. The high speed significantly shortens the available reaction time. At the same time, distances and gaps for the entering vehicle become considerably harder to gauge.

Against this background, the court allocated liability in a surprisingly clear manner. The driver on the priority road bears 80 percent of the damage, while the yielding party bears only 20 percent. The judgment (case no. 4 O 221/23) thus makes clear that right of way in liability law is not viewed in isolation. What is decisive is always a comprehensive weighing of all circumstances – including speed, visibility, reaction opportunities, and the question whether the accident could have been avoided.