Accident-induced psychological harm: Federal Court of Justice verdict reinforces right to compensation for suffering

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has issued a landmark decision on February 11, 2025, clarifying the requirements for the burden of proof of plaintiffs in cases of psychological damages in pain and suffering claims. The decision came after a pedestrian, who was involved in a traffic accident, successfully filed a non-admission complaint with the Federal Court of Justice.

The plaintiff, who had undergone 23 psychotherapeutic treatment sessions deemed medically necessary, claimed psychological damages resulting from her son's severe injuries. In her report, she provided a detailed description of her psychological symptoms as "pathologically detectable health impairments in the psychological realm."

The BGH interprets these requirements in favor of the injured parties, stating that a plaintiff seeking damages for bodily injury or illness does not need to have detailed medical knowledge. The court further clarified that a plaintiff's lay knowledge, plus a medical report, is sufficient to substantiate claims.

The case involved a pedestrian who was injured in a traffic accident, with her six-week-old son spending a week in an induced coma as a result. The plaintiff's request for an expert opinion was confirmed, and the BGH overturned the Higher Regional Court's decision, as it had imposed excessively high requirements on the plaintiff's obligation to substantiate her claims.

The Traffic Law working group of the German Bar Association welcomes the latest decision of the Federal Court of Justice. The working group emphasises that the decision provides clarity and support for plaintiffs in psychological damage cases, who should not be expected to have excessive detailed knowledge about their psychological impairments.

It is important to note that further substantiation, such as providing a diagnosis from the ICD-10 catalog, was not expected from a medical layperson in this case. The person who filed the application for non-admission at the Federal Court of Justice in February 2025, which led to this decision, is not explicitly named in the available search results.

In conclusion, the BGH decision provides a significant step forward in ensuring that plaintiffs in psychological damage cases are not unfairly disadvantaged due to their lack of medical knowledge. The decision makes it clear that a plaintiff's lay knowledge, coupled with a medical report, is sufficient to substantiate claims, and that medical laypeople should not be expected to have excessive detailed knowledge about their psychological impairments.

Accident-induced psychological harm: Federal Court of Justice verdict reinforces right to compensation for suffering