To ramp or not to ramp, that was the question in a dispute before the Munich district court over compensation and compensation for pain and suffering after a cycling accident. A Munich woman wanted to sue for more than 3,000 euros because she was of the opinion that the cycle path along a construction site was defective and that was why she fell. But she couldn’t convince the court of this.
It was shortly before midnight on an evening in June 2021. The woman was riding an e-bike along Peter-Auzinger-Straße in Obergiesing-Fasangarten. At one point, due to construction work, the cycle path was diverted onto the street, led along the construction site within barrier fences and then returned to the normal cycle path.
The plaintiff now claimed that she fell while driving onto the bike path because there was no ramp from the street to the bike path. She suffered a number of bruises in the fall and claimed medical costs amounting to more than 600 euros, as well as the repair of her e-bike costing a good 500 euros and 2,000 euros in compensation.
The construction company working there was responsible for safe traffic routing along this point. The plaintiff also accused the plaintiff of the fact that the warning lights on the barrier fences were not in operation at the time of the accident around 11:45 p.m.
The civil chamber, however, had a problem: it could not determine whether a so-called ramp was actually missing on the day of the accident. As press spokesman Martin Swoboda from the district court explains, the witness statements were very contradictory. “None of the statements appeared to the court to be more credible or believable.” The court had photos of the location in question, but they were not from the day of the accident.
It was undisputed that the construction company was responsible for safe traffic management at the construction site. It would also have had to create reductions from the sidewalk to the street, if none existed. But based on the evidence, the court could not find that the company had failed to comply. A so-called violation of traffic obligations could therefore not be proven.
And as far as the criticized lighting on the warning beacons and barrier fences is concerned, it would not have the function of illuminating the road itself. “The purpose of the lighting is simply to show the course of the path,” the court ruled. The cyclist is now stuck with the costs: she has accepted the judgment, it is legally binding.