Jemand hat erzählt, der Autofahrer ist im Straßenverkehr immer schuldig für Personenschäden. Wenn sich jemand vor das Auto wirft, hat der Autofahrer eine Mitschuld bei schweren Verletzungen oder Todesfolge. auch wenn der nichts dafür kann. Stimmt das?
(3 votes)
Loading...Hallo, möchte gerne für meinen Golf 7 5G Bj.2017 150ps Alufelgen in 18 zoll kaufen. Momentan fahre ich das Auto mit 17 zoll. Die 17 zoll Felgen haben die ET 49. Die neuen Felgen aber ET 51. Ist das überhaupt erlaubt und wenn ja passen die Felgen auch?? Bin für alle Antworten dankbar. Gruß Costa
Und wie viel kosten spart ihr monatlich dadurch?
Hallo, ich möchte mir gerne einen 3er bmw kaufen, da ich die meisten Autos der Reihe wirklich sehr schön finde und mit den Autos in der Familie groß geworden bin. Ich möchte gerne ein coupe haben, cabrios gefallen mir optisch nicht so wegen den stoffdächern , Kombis sind mir zu klobig und die Limousinen sind…
Hallo. Habe mir 16 A1 gemacht, 17 BF17 (B) und nun mit 18 A2. Meine Probezeit ist nach den 2 Jahren die mit dem Erwerb des A1 Führerscheins begannen abgelaufen oder?
Hallo, ein Freund von mir wurde innerhalb von 3-4 Monaten 2x mit über 21 km/h geblitzt. Zuvor hat er bereits eine MPU aufgrund von Cannabis und anderer Geschwindigkeitsüberschreitungen ablegen müssen. Was kommt auf ihn zu? Fahrverbot oder erneute MPU?
Die sind ja oft schon 50 Jahre alt…
No. Whatever you can’t influence, you can’t blame it either.
Take a normal road, you drive 100 km/h. Accordingly, a braking distance of 50 m is realistic (the driving shoulder formula refers to a normal braking) and you have 30 m reaction path. Say, after 80 m you can come to stand. But certainly not after 20-30 m.
If someone jumps out of the bush and in front of your car now 20-30 m before you, it’s clear that you can’t brake in time anymore. And do not always go out, e.g. no one would control into an accommodating truck. Especially since you drive 20-30 m far, until you do anything at all.
And that with perfectly consistent behavior.
How shall you now be guilty of the death of this man?
__
Sure: If an expert has read the data of the accident data recorder and finds that the first reaction has only happened after 3 seconds (i.e. you have reacted too slowly) or you have traveled 120 km/h instead of the allowed 100, then you have committed a misconduct that has contributed to the accident. And get a partial debt because of this misconduct.
And that’s going to be a mistake for many people. How often do you think or have a discussion with the passenger and do not concentrate on the road? And how often does the tacho show something more than allowed?
No. Unavoidable does not lead to the driver’s fault.
In the event of an accident involving personal injury, IMMER will be carefully examined whether the driver could have avoided the accident.
Even with self-killers on the tracks. In fact, it also plays a minor role that the train has a braking path of clearly over one kilometre.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that the locomotive is always guilty. it will certainly come to charge.
Lg, Anna
This is grottenfalsch:
There will always be an investigation procedure, but if it is found that the locomotive/car driver has acted in accordance with the rules, there is no prosecution – any civil law claims due to the danger of operation are a completely different construction site, but if someone deliberately throws himself in front of a vehicle, they should also be excluded.
As HugoHusten juice has already written, it is not in any case in charge. The prosecutor’s office only charges if there are clear arguments that a condemnation is also likely in the end.
No, that’s not true.
It is true that motorists in very many cases get a partial debt which is defined by the danger of the vehicle.
So-called operating liability, which can be no matter what the driver does, because he has liability insurance.
Unfug – even the danger of operation does not generate any liability claim if the damage was caused by the third party intentionally and the driver had acted in accordance with the rules. By the way, it cannot be the car driver, as is known, a liability damage leads to a reclassification in the damage-free debate.
That’s not quite correct.
The decisive factor is not whether the driver has acted in accordance with the regulations, but rather whether the accident could have been avoided by him.
That’s wrong. He’s not guilty, but he’s liable. This leads a motor vehicle to the driver of a so-called vehicle. Risk liability subject. So he is liable for the damage, but he does not have to cause it.
Yes, unfortunately. But if you hate a dashcam, the chances are higher to get no trouble.
Hello sandralikesb
If you can be proven that you were on the move faster than allowed. If you could have avoided the accident if you were driving only at the permitted speed, then you are due
Greetings HobbyTfz
No.