English Translation

10. Fahrgang 1940 Heft 40] Jurisdiction 1689 have to keep rather than drive into the narrow space between the edge of the road behind the holding horse carriage load train and horse carriage. It therefore leads to stop and let the load train pass first, the indignation of the Kl.'s own inconsistency, not when it saw that the distance between the load pull and the truck, on the other hand, was too narrow for the driver's work to behave in a way contrary to traffic. On the other hand, he asks himself too rudely, and assumes that he has observed each according to the circumstances, however, whether the carrier had observed with the care required by him of the case. Consequently, the utmost care had not to reckon with an incorrect or undeniable liability of the claimant of the Kl.. The distance of the The Reb. The BG considers the view of the BG to be right-wing Kl. of the holding horse-carriage, which the attention and also sees the § 286 3P0. could not escape in several respects as the load-carrying guide and has not escaped., was in the Augenblid, when the load train guide First of all she thinks, when applying the necessary with the spiege of his load-train the KL. The thought that the Kl., the KL., as well as the Nl. child driving only 45m behind him, would not have been easy to recognize, must have seen the Kla., which will be the Kle., especially since the locality completely superior coming load train does not pay sufficient attention or that it has been. According to his own statement, he did not see any of the two troy of his attention and the cyclist who threatened her from it. Further states that the load train would attempt danger that the vehicle without a guide would then have to run around from the beginning of its journey under the given circumstances, was by no means far off to expect that the two cyclists, all the less so as they, in a short distance, would overtake a batter and daughter, the vehicle on the left other Nad drivers (their father) followed. It is therefore necessary and would have been necessary, especially with a view to the length of his re-examination of the facts, to avoid the load train driver working at length to the left, so that the naked driver would in no way endanger the extreme care drivers required by the circumstances. It should also be noted that in the left, even in the absence of vehicles of this kind, the resulting doubts were at the expense of the quite possible, and that he had been obliged to pay attention to Bell. as the vehicle owner (NCZ. 162, 3), because the client was a child (RG., III. ZivSen., U.V. 12). In the light of the above considerations, the Commission considers that, in the present case, it is necessary to take account of the fact that, according to the Court of First Instance, the provisions of Article 85(1) of the Treaty do not preclude the application of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. It is wrong that the BG. thus had a fault with its self-controlled driver. From a discharge according to §7 of motor vehicles the husband of the Kl. at the crossing of the LW.-Straße in H. approached and transferred fatally. The KL. Abf. 2 Saß 2 KraftfG. could not be said. The claim of a maintenance pension of 23 RM per month, which was based on §7 KraftfG., is based on the fact that he obtains a reason, the claims cited in paragraph 1 of this article are due to the fact, that he was indisputably given without liability. The dispute was lighted. On the other hand, it claims that it restricts its liability to the question of whether the obligation of disclosure of the declaration pursuant to §7 para.2 Say 2 is well closed by the street lamps. This is the case if the accident has been driven by illuminated road with standing light and with only about 35 to an inevitable event i.e. caused by this Borschrift 40 km/hd.. A folical event lies according to the Gesey among other things. The claims of the Kl. are present both according to type as well as when the accident on the behavior of the Berleyten height within the scope of the KraftfG. (§g 10, 12). The statement is to be held liable and therefore both the owner of the vehicle, even without having to face a debt, and the driver of the same "have observed in the circumstances of the care already required for the accident damage according to §7 (1) and (2) of the KraftfG.". The proof of the then, if he does not provide the discharge proof, that observation of such care has to lead in the preliminary dispute which he as the leader of his motor vehicle each according to the then claim. An omission of the same is observed by circumstances of due care, i.e. with entirely according to the situation of the case only on the side of the load train driver in particularly tense attention and care un- question. ter cumbersome recording of any appropriate, according to obwal- The care required for relief is now not the prevailing circumstances conceivable means for the application of the Ge. "required in return" of § 276 BGB., but rather a danger to other road users and thus also of the considerably increased. The application of the involuntary H. at that time was demanded. This was after the previous "extremely according to the circumstances of the case possible facts not the case. Care" (RG3. 86, 151 = JW. 1915, 404; RG3. He himself claims that he was driving with standing light 152, 52 = JW. 1936, 3391 s). Whether the BG. was correct. That was in itself in which, as the taking of evidence he recognized, appears doubtful. Fn gave the files 39 PLs, good illumination of the LW.-Straße by the bright 2023/38 of the Amtsanwaltschaft Berlin, the subject of the burning street lamps according to § 33 Abf. 2 RStrassBerkO. It is obvious that he did not notice any nad drivers beside himself (before the accident) against his statement at all without lights on the car. This is striking, since he is driving after the detention, because of the conflicting witnesses. not only the Kel., but also their about 4-5 m say about it do not notice with certainty more. Fuhr in front of her moving bater must have overtaken. As he explains and is therefore not refuted to him, he had to use and adapt his other driving technique to the traffic on the road leading to the load train, which could have diverted his speed from the two cyclists. He has been determined by his own information, even if not refuted to him, at 3540 km/h. Of course, a motor vehicle driver is generally not to blame if he takes the cyclist, who is this speed under ordinary circumstances, to outside his direction of travel in such a way that sometimes the LW. Road is a long-distance road, in which a mutual barrier with proper traffic maintenance of good lighting at that time is not to be objected even after the entrance of the darkness itself. Here however for seems closed, not particularly noticed. The in §7 Abf.2 Saß 2 KraftfG. However, considering the duty of care requires the explanation, since he was merely driving with standing light, special circumstances also precede the reckless inspection of a possibility imposed by the circumstances, which, if applied, at least every care required, to drive more slowly, with only about 20 to at least 30 km/h, of an incorrect or unscathed occupation of other road users (according to the judgment of the RG. In order to be able to stop driving obstacles immediately or at least to bend at the side, even in the event of unforeseen, fatal 17th Funi 1912, VI519/11 and from Sept. 21, 1936, VI 83/36. The accident that occurred shows Leşteres abdr. HöchstNNspr. 1936 no. 1566. Fn this reference are not exhaustive the explanations of the BG. that the speed of 35 to 40 km/h, which it adhered to, was too high. If, however, the Kel. - in it is agreeable to the BG. - driving with standing light only, as already noted, was right on the right here in the established traffic situation, it is generally in the road crossing 212