Driver Worldwide: Shocking & deadly car accidents on the road

Shocking & deadly car accidents on the road

More comments on the Fotokonvult

THE BUNDESGERICHT
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE

The Xth Civil Division of the Federal Court of Justice has referred to the oralHearing held on 4 April 2006 by the President of the Chamber, Dr. Melullis, Judge Keukenschrijver, Ambrose andJudge Asendorf and Dr Kirchhoff hereby rules:On the defendant's revision on 8 April 2005Proclaimed judgment of the Civil Court 56 of the Landgericht Berlin. The legal dispute is remitted to the Court of Appeal for a new hearing and decision, including the costs of the revision. By lawThe plaintiff is a vehicle expert. The defendant has suffered an accident with his personal motor vehicle and ordered the plaintiff in October 2003 to draw up a damage report. The plaintiff has drawn up the expert's report and invoiced it at € 642.73, using a "basic bonus" of € 421, which he has received on the grounds of aTotal loss according to the replacement value. In addition, he has write costs of 41, porti and telephone inAmount of Porti and telephone in the amount of 20.50 €, travel expenses of 26, - € and costs for color photos in the amount of€ 45.60 to the fee. The defendant has considered the fee to be far too highThe defendant claimed payment of the fee. The District Court dismissed the action because a calculation based solely on the amount of damage did not correspond to fairness within the meaning of § 315 BGB. The District Court has the ruling on the appeal of the plaintiffOf the District Court, rejecting the wider appeal, and dismissing the defendant, with the reduction of the ancillary costs declared for the payment of€ 567.24 with interest since November 14,
With the revision approved by the Court of Appeals, theDefended the annulment of the appeal,In so far as they have been found to be to their disadvantage, a decision according to their Opinion in the Court of Appeal and, in the alternative, the remittal of the case to the Court of Appeal. The applicant is:Revision.
Reasons for decision:The revision results in the annulment of the appeal and theReassessment of the case to the Court of Appeals for new trial and decision, to the detrimentThe defendant has been recognized.I. The Court of Appeals has,The parties(German Civil Code), which is applicable in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice (see only BGHZ 127, 378, 384), to which the Civil Code is to be applied as amended by the Law on the Modernization of the Law of ObligationsIn 2003 (Article 229 § 5 of the German Civil Code).II. 1. The Court of Appeals shall have no effectBetween the partiesNo agreement was reached on the amount of the remuneration for the expert opinion to be drawn up, there was no tax, and no usual remuneration could be givenSo that the remuneration of the applicantPursuant to § 315f of the German Civil Code (BGB).2. This does not hold up to the statutory audits. The Court of Appeals failed to recognize the prerequisites under which, in the contract of employment contract to determine the remuneration of the contractor on § 316 BGBCan be relied upon, so that theThe contested judgment is based on a breach of substantive law. The Court of Appeals did not establish the extent to which the applicant 's performance was comparableUsually be remunerated, so theS was not a room for a design judgment of the court of appeal under section 315 (3) sentence 2 BGB and the defendantTo pay remunerationWhich she does not owe.(A) The Court of Appeal rightly assumed that in the contract of employment a unilateral right to determine the consideration to be provided for a service pursuant to § 315 (1) BGB can only be considered if theParties to the contract have not regulated the amount of the remuneration, a tax within the meaning of § 632 (2) BGB does not exist and a normal remuneration is not ascertainable. This means, however, that the conditions under which the right of the work contractTo the interpretation rule of § 316 BGB, can not be conclusively named.Pursuant to § 632 para. 1 BGB, the payment of a remuneration for theWork performance as tacitly agreed, if the production of the work in the circumstances only afterA remuneration is to be expected. As the defendant also does not question, the drafting of the damage report byThe applicant only against paymentThe applicant is entitled to a remuneration. Since the parties have a certainHave not agreed and a tax within the meaning of § 6

To the interests of the parties and their will - does not correspond to § 316 BGB. In the faceThe presupposition of the law, which is based on the typical will of the parties, is evident from § 632 (2) BGB (German Civil Code)Rather, in this case, it is advisable to refer primarily to the rules on the supplementary interpretation of the contract (see Münch.Kommche / Busche, ibid., § 632 BGB, paragraph 23). In this context, a recourse to the provisions of Sections 316, 315 of the German Civil Code (BGB); However, in this context, priority must also be given to the subject matter of the service and the circumstances which shape the relationship between the parties. theyDetermine the content of the agreement made by the parties and, as a rule, provide a sufficient basis for determining the fairness of the remuneration.Findings from which, taking into account theThe Court of First Instance did not take the view that there was no normal remuneration. The Court of Appeals, as the rejection of the appeal, with the objections raised by it, has the plaintiff of the plaintiff who is subject to the obligation to show that he is so subject to the law (see Staudinger, Peters, BGB, 2003, § 632 BGB,120) of 21 March 2005 on the customary nature of the fee charged by him. His assumption that a customary remuneration is notThe factual basis. Thus, the defendant, without prejudice to §§ 316, 315 BGB on the remuneration of judicial experts on private persons, has already objected to the fact that, in contrast to judicial experts who are not parties to the parties,The contracting authority in generalRules both contractual and delictual (see Münch.Kom. / Soergel, BGB, 4th ed., § 631 BGB85, 86), while the liability of judicial experts is subject to the special provision of Section 839a of the German Civil Code (BGB), which, on the one hand, extends liability solely to pure interests, but on the other hand has limited to gross negligence and intent(§ 407 ZPO, § 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), is obliged to carry out the inspection periodically, without the pressure of a possible recourseOf the parties may exercise their rights (see Münch.Komm / Soergel, § 631 BGB Rdn. 86, Münch.Komm. / Wagner, BGB, 4th ed., § 839 a BGB Rdn. To the extent that the revision is a complaint, the plaintiff 's performanceAnd the fact that the following provision of the contested decision in the contested judg ment is unfair and incomprehensible also in relation to the flat-rate ancillary costs, does not draw themIn principle, in doubt that the fee may be measured in such a way that the expert in addition toA basic tariff for his real expert activity flat rates for incidental expenses such as writing costs, porti, telephone, photographs and trips in the calculation of his total tarragonS. Such a determination of the aggregate tariff shall be made in accordance with the principles set out aboveFor the determination of the counter-performance in the fairness of the discretion, can not be objected for legal reasons.2. The interest rate point is, in the event that, on the basis of the§§ 315, 316 BGB should be decided to point out the following: Is the one-sidedFee estimation as in the sense of § 315(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), it is for the defendant with the provision of performance by the plaintiff(Section 315 (3), first sentence, of the German Civil Code) and consequently due.Under the conditions of § 286 and § 291 BGB the defendant owesDefault and process interest rates. Is the one-sidedIn accordance with the principles set out above, to determine whether the provision of the service is of an equitable discretion, but as an infringement of the discretion granted to the applicant by the law,To determine the remuneration to which the applicant is entitled by means of an administrative decision. It is only with the legal force of this design judgment that the claim becomes due and the debtor may be in default (Sen.Urt. V. 5.7.2005 - X ZR 60/04, NJW 2005, 767 under II. 1. b, BGH, Urt , § 315 BGB Rdn. 49, Palandt / Heinrichs, BGB, 64th ed., § 315 German Civil Code (German Civil Code) (BGB, German Civil Code) 17, Staudinger and Rieble, Federal Law Gazette (BGB, Germany), § 315 BGB, paragraph 276 (see also BAG NJW 1969, 1735). The design effect of the(BGHZ 122, 32, 46), which is connected with the reassessment of remuneration. However, with the legal force of the design judgment, the default of the debtor occurs readily and even if the judgment has a definiteTime for performance not exported

No comments:

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES

DEFINITION
An accident judgment is the final action resulting from a suit filed in a court of law. A judgment may be rendered in any court of law, including judicial court, municipal court, district court and the justice of the peace court, and will be processed by this Department provided all requirements for acceptability are met.

REQUIREMENTS

Certified copy of the judgment. If the judgement is not certified, it must be signed by a representative of the court.
Clerk's certificate stating the judgment is final and no suspensive appeal has been taken.
If the claim amount is over, $25,000, a breakdown of the property and medical damages must be included.

METHODS OF COMPLIANCE

Proof of insurance covering the date of accident; or
Acceptable installment agreement; or
Final court Judgment or release indicating owner/driver is free from liability arising from the accident; or
Evidence from the court that more than 10 years has lapsed and the Judgment has not been re-inscribed; or
Acceptable bankruptcy documents

SR-22 REQUIREMENTS

Proof of Financial Responsibility (SR-22) is required when an installment agreement is filed and until three years after the date of release from the judgment
SR-22 is not required if the judgment was paid off within 60 days of the judgment date
Official notices issued prior to July 1, 1992 are not required to carry SR-22 for 3 years from the date of judgment rendered.

Italian woman charged over motorbike hit

An Italian woman has been charged with dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm after a female motorcyclist was critically injured in a crash on the NSW's north coast.

The crash happened around 1.45pm on Friday at Shelly Beach, East Ballina.

The 47-year-old motorcycle rider was taken to Gold Coast Hospital in a critical condition with numerous serious injuries after a collision with a van.

The driver of the van, a 29-year-old woman from Italy, was not injured but has been charged with dangerous driving and negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

She was granted conditional bail to appear at Ballina Local Court on February 9.

Yearly snapshot

A total of 35,092 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2015. The U.S. Department of Transportation's most recent estimate of the annual economic cost of crashes was $242 billion dollars. 1 Contributing to the death toll are alcohol, speeding, lack of safety belt use and other problematic driver behaviors. Death rates vary by vehicle type, driver age and gender, and other factors.

In 1975, the U.S. Department of Transportation started an annual census of motor vehicle deaths, recording information on crash type, vehicle type, road type, driver characteristics and a variety of other factors. Institute researchers analyze these data each year to quantify the public health problem of motor vehicle deaths.

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year

The table below is a list of motor vehicle deaths in the United States by year. On average in 2012, 92 people were killed on the roadways of the U.S. each day, in 30,800 fatal crashes during the year.^[1]

The number of deaths – and deaths relative to the total population – has declined over the last two decades. From 1979 to 2005, the number of deaths per year decreased 14.97% while the number of deaths per capita decreased by 35.46%. In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes (30,296 fatal crashes), killing 32,999 and injuring 2,239,000.^[2] The 32,479 traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949). Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.