On March 9, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued a landmark ruling on pharmaceutical liability following Vaxzevria vaccinations (Case No. VI ZR 335/24). The decision concerns the requirements for the right to information under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) and the claim for damages under Section 84 AMG. Rogert & Ulbrich represent clients nationwide in vaccination injury claims and monitor this development in case law.

The facts: Sudden hearing loss three days after vaccination

A 40-year-old dentist was vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine Vaxzevria on March 5, 2021. Immediately after the vaccination, she noticed a tingling sensation in her left hand. Three days later, she experienced complete hearing loss in her right ear, accompanied by tinnitus, gait instability, and numbness. The university hospital diagnosed her with idiopathic sudden hearing loss. A recovery of her hearing is not expected.

The plaintiff asserted claims for information and damages against AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company. The Mainz Regional Court and the Koblenz Higher Regional Court dismissed the claim. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the appeal judgment and remanded the case.

Have you experienced health problems after receiving a Vaxzevria vaccination? Have your case reviewed before deadlines expire.

What the court decided

The court clarified several important points that apply to all those affected.

First: You don't have to prove that the vaccine caused your injury. It's enough if it's plausible – that is, comprehensible. The court explicitly stated that even if, at present, more evidence points against the vaccine as the cause than in favor of it, you can still request information.

Secondly, if the temporal relationship between vaccination and illness is close and no other cause can be proven, the law presumes that the vaccine was to blame. The manufacturer must then prove that something else was behind it – something concrete.

Thirdly: The doctors diagnosed the plaintiff with so-called "idiopathic sudden hearing loss." This only means that the cause has not been definitively established medically. The court clarifies: This is not proof that the vaccine was not to blame. It merely means that it cannot be said with certainty.

This is good news for everyone affected. Get in touch – we'll assess your individual situation.

What information can you request from the manufacturer?

Before claiming damages, one has the right to request information from the pharmaceutical company: What did the company know about the risks of the vaccine? What side effects were reported?

Previous courts have often restricted this right, ruling that information is only available about side effects that precisely match one's own medical condition. The Federal Court of Justice has now clearly stated: This is wrong. You can demand comprehensive information – about all known risks of the vaccine, including those affecting other patients. Only those who understand the bigger picture can assess whether a drug, overall, does more harm than good.

Do not sign any settlements or accept any rejections before you have asserted this right to information.

What about the official approval of the vaccine?

Vaxzevria was officially approved by the European Union. Many courts have used this as an argument: official approval means the vaccine is safe – and therefore no compensation can be claimed.

The Federal Court of Justice sees things differently. Admission is a decision based on the state of knowledge at the time. For a damages claim, what matters is what science knows today. And a court must determine this current state of knowledge through an independent expert – not by referring to old official assessments.

The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz had failed to do precisely that – and therefore its judgment was overturned.

If you feel that your procedure is based on outdated principles, have the decision reviewed.

What does that mean for you personally?

If you have become ill after receiving a vaxzevria vaccination and previously thought you had no legal recourse, you should have your situation reassessed. This is especially important if your doctor has classified the illness as "without a discernible cause," if a lawsuit has already been dismissed, or if you have not yet sought legal advice.

Important: There are deadlines for claims for damages. Anyone who was vaccinated in 2021 and learned of their injury early on should not wait any longer.

Read here the entire judgment.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers for vaccine injury cases

Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich specialize in claims for damages under the German Medicines Act. Since 2021, the law firm Rogert & Ulbrich has been representing individuals nationwide who have suffered health problems following a Vaxzevria vaccination and continuously monitors case law in this area.

Rogert & Ulbrich will examine whether and how a claim for information or compensation can be enforced on your behalf – both out of court and in court. In doing so, we collaborate with medical experts who assess the individual circumstances of your case.

Do you want to know if you are entitled to any benefits? Get in touch and secure your claims.

Der Beitrag BGH-Urteil zu Vaxzevria – Was Impfgeschädigte jetzt wissen müssen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

lawyer Marco Rogert It explains under what conditions a return is possible and what steps those affected should now consider.

Read the full article at Focus Online here and find out what options are available to you.

Der Beitrag Plug-in-Hybrid verbraucht deutlich mehr als versprochen? Das können Sie tun erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Current studies However, other sources paint a different picture. Numerous vehicle owners report significantly higher real-world fuel consumption. This raises the central legal question: Does a substantial discrepancy between official fuel consumption figures and actual everyday consumption constitute a material defect within the meaning of Section 434 of the German Civil Code (BGB)?

New Fraunhofer study: Real-world consumption up to 300 percent higher

A recent study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), based on real driving data from around one million plug-in hybrid vehicles from the years 2021 to 2023, comes to a clear conclusion: The average real fuel consumption is around six liters per 100 kilometers – and thus around three times higher than many official WLTP figures.

What's remarkable is the data basis. Unlike traditional test bench investigations, this study analyzed real-world driving data from the road, transmitted digitally by the vehicles. This makes it the first study to systematically depict actual everyday use.

Why is the combustion engine activated more frequently?

Many buyers assumed they would be able to operate their vehicle almost exclusively on electric power. In practice, however, it turns out that the combustion engine starts up significantly more often than expected.

The causes include climatic conditions, performance demands during acceleration, software-based protection mechanisms for the battery, and real-world driving profiles that deviate significantly from the standardized WLTP test cycle. Even in predominantly electric mode, measurable fuel consumption occurs.

This raises the question for many affected individuals as to whether the advertised consumption figures are realistically achievable under everyday conditions.

Legal classification: When does a material defect exist?

According to § 434 of the German Civil Code (BGB), an item is defective if it does not possess the agreed-upon or customary quality. In particular, it is decisive whether the consumption specifications have become part of the contractually owed quality or at least give rise to a legitimate expectation of the buyer.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that significant and lasting discrepancies between prospectus information and actual consumption values can constitute a defect – especially if the information was decisive for the purchase.

Depending on the individual case, the following claims may be considered:

• withdrawal from the purchase contract
• Purchase price reduction
• damages
• Challenge due to fraudulent misrepresentation
• Potential tort claims against the manufacturer

Especially in light of the case law related to the diesel scandal, courts are increasingly critically examining whether manufacturers' information was suitable to economically influence consumers.

Parallels to the diesel scandal?

Also in diesel scandal Officially approved test bench results were in significant contradiction to real-world driving conditions. While the technical reasons differ, the legal question remains whether inherently unrealistic testing procedures present a distorted picture of actual usage.

Should structural and systematic deviations be confirmed, this could create a new area of liability for manufacturers.

Tax advantages and subsidies – a poor economic decision?

Many buyers opted for a plug-in hybrid due to financial incentives such as the 0.5 percent rule for company cars, environmental bonuses, or favorable CO₂ ratings.

However, if actual consumption proves to be significantly higher, this can considerably alter the economic calculations. In such cases, the question arises whether the purchase decision was based on inaccurate consumption assumptions.

Have your claims legally reviewed now.

Current research suggests that numerous buyers of plug-in hybrid vehicles may have been economically disadvantaged.

Whether your specific case involves a material defect, a misleading consumption statement, or a claim for rescission or compensation depends on the individual circumstances.

We will review your contract documents, the advertised consumption figures, and your actual usage situation, and assess possible warranty or tort claims.

Get your case legally assessed now, free of charge and without obligation.
The sooner you act, the better you can protect your rights.

FAQ – Plug-in hybrid fuel consumption and legal rights

Der Beitrag Plug-in-Hybride mit falschen Verbrauchswerten? Schadensersatz und Rücktritt vom Kaufvertrag prüfen lassen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

The case concerns a Mercedes GLC 220 d 4Matic with the OM 651 diesel engine. The vehicle was equipped with a SCR system equipped for exhaust gas purification using AdBlue. However, in the court's opinion, the specific design of the SCR control – in particular the switching logic between different dosing modes – constituted a impermissible shutdown device This led to exhaust gas purification being restricted under certain conditions, which could result in higher nitrogen oxide levels in real-world driving than on the test bench.

The plaintiff, represented by the Rogert & Ulbrich Law Firm, Mercedes-Benz subsequently demanded damages. While the Erfurt Regional Court had already ruled in favor of the buyer in the first instance, Mercedes-Benz appealed – but without success. The Jena Higher Regional Court essentially upheld the first-instance ruling and clarified that Mercedes was liable to the plaintiff for damages based on a negligent violation of Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Sections 6 and 27 of the EC Vehicle Approval Regulation (EG-FGV) liable.

The judges considered it proven that Mercedes had failed to provide the buyer with a incorrect certificate of conformity The company had been granted a permit because the vehicle had been put into circulation with an illegal emissions control system. Neither the approval by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) nor the subsequent software update changed the liability. The company's attempt to plead a so-called mistake of law was also unsuccessful.

Conclusion

The ruling is another important victory for affected diesel owners. It shows that even after software updates, manufacturers remain liable if the exhaust gas purification system continues to be technically manipulated. Affected buyers can therefore continue to successfully pursue their claims. Claims for damages against Mercedes-Benz assert your claim.

Der Beitrag OLG Jena verurteilt Mercedes-Benz im Dieselverfahren – Kläger erhält Schadensersatz wegen unzulässiger Abschalteinrichtung erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Judgment of the Saarbrücken Regional Court

The consignor, as defined by the CMR, is the person who has entered into a contract of carriage with the carrier. The seller, who is listed on the consignment note and sells the goods EXW, is not a contractual partner of the carrier. Therefore, the seller cannot assert any claims for damages against the CMR carrier in such a case.

Conclusion

The Saarbrücken Regional Court ruled that the seller who sells the goods under the EXW clause and is registered as such in the consignment note is not considered a contractual partner of the carrier. Therefore, in this case, the seller cannot assert claims for damages against the CMR carrier, since, according to the CMR, only the consignor who has concluded a contract of carriage with the carrier is entitled to make such claims.

Der Beitrag Zur Bedeutung von Incoterms-Klauseln im Rahmen des Frachtvertrages erschien zuerst auf R&U.

The Munich I Regional Court decided a legal dispute about the duty of care on golf courses. A golfer lost her balance after falling on the golf course and suffered a painful torn ligament. The injury resulted in her being unable to work and forced her to cancel her planned vacation.

The woman blamed the golf course operator for the incident and demanded compensation. The main point of contention was the question of whether the potentially dangerous area was adequately secured.

Golfer sues operator after fall in underpass: demand for compensation

In the fall of 2023, an accident occurred on a regular golf course: a golfer fell when her golf cart skidded on a wet grassy section on the slope of an underpass. The fall resulted in serious injuries, including a bony ligament tear and a ruptured lateral ankle ligament. The golfer was unable to work for three months, had to undergo physiotherapy treatments and cancel a planned vacation.

She then sued the operator of the golf course, demanding compensation for pain and suffering and damages. The ruling highlights the legal limits of the duty of care on golf courses.

Dispute over golf course accident: Did freshly mown grass influence the incident?

The plaintiff is demanding compensation from the operator of the golf course and argues that the increased duty of care was violated on the sloping section. She claims that freshly mown grass increased the risk of accidents, although she was unable to recognize the danger.

The operator denies both the circumstances of the accident and its responsibility. No mowing work was carried out at the accident site and employees did not find any grass residue. The operator emphasizes that grass residue and sloping sections are typical risks on a golf course. As a long-standing club member, the plaintiff should have known the area well and should have been cautious. The outcome of the proceedings remains open.

Verdict: Golf course operator not liable for golfer's fall

The Munich I Regional Court (judgment of December 10, 2024 - 13 O 7261/24) dismissed a golfer's claim for compensation for pain and suffering. The plaintiff was unable to clearly prove the course of events of the accident. While she stated that she had slipped on wet grass, the medical report reported a twisted ankle.

The court ruled that the operator of the golf course had not violated any duty of care. Golf course operators are only obliged to protect against unforeseeable dangers that go beyond the usual risks of golf. Even if grass remains had been present, these are considered to be foreseeable and recognizable risks for golfers and do not represent an extraordinary danger.

The court also found that the plaintiff bore "a large degree of contributory negligence". She had not acted with sufficient caution when driving down the slope with the golf trolley. Therefore, no claim for damages or compensation for pain and suffering was recognized.

Who is liable for damages, accidents or breaches of contract? Our specialist civil law lawyers will advise you comprehensively and enforce your claims – competently, goal-oriented and solution-oriented.

Der Beitrag Keine Haftung des Golfplatzbetreibers bei Sturz durch feuchtes Gras erschien zuerst auf R&U.

The case ended up in court, and the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled in favor of the shipowner: The shipyard was ordered to pay 146,498 euros in damages for loss of use.
This case demonstrates the importance of compliance with the contractual warranty when repairing ships. Shipowners are entitled to compensation for defects that result in significant loss of use.

Warranty for work and services on ships: compensation and legal challenges

The warranty under a work contract is essential in construction and manufacturing law. It obligates the contractor to remedy defects that arise during the contract term. Legally sound defect rectification is particularly important in the maritime sector, where ships are subject to complex stresses.

The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court strengthened the rights of ship owners with a recent ruling and awarded damages to an owner after defective work led to loss of use.

Rights and obligations for remedial work:

• Clear deadlines for complaints
• Obligation to carry out professional repairs
• Compensation for loss of use

This case highlights the importance of enforcing contractual warranty claims and obtaining legal support for repairs to ships.

The case: Defective ship equipment – Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf orders shipyard to pay damages

The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled in favor of a shipowner claiming damages due to the defective interior coating of an inland waterway vessel. The shipyard was ordered to pay €146,498 for the resulting loss of use. The damage was caused by a defective coating on the tanker, which resulted in coating residues while transporting biodiesel. This resulted in the vessel being taken out of service for several weeks. It was unloaded, cleaned, and the coating completely renewed. The loss of use totaled 55 days.

The shipowner subsequently sued for damages based on the previous demurrage rates for inland waterway shipping. The shipyard attempted to invoke liability exclusions in the contract, but the court declared these invalid. The ruling confirms the amount of damages and thus strengthens the rights of shipowners in the event of defects and loss of use. The right to compensation for shipowners is particularly emphasized within the framework of a warranty under a contract for work and services.

Conclusion: Strengthening the rights of shipowners in the event of loss of use

The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf confirms the applicability of statutory demurrage rates for calculating loss of use for inland waterway vessels and sets clear limits for ineffective exclusions of liability in shipyard contracts. 

Shipowners benefit from strengthened rights in the event of defects in workmanship and can claim compensation for loss of use due to defective performance.

 The decision simplifies the calculation of damages and emphasizes that unclear contractual clauses should be critically examined and interpreted in favor of the injured party. Important: Carefully document defects and downtime to effectively enforce your claims.

Your partner in shipping law: Legal certainty for shipyard contracts

As experienced maritime lawyers, we represent boat owners in disputes with shipyards regarding construction contracts. Whether defects in the new build, faulty repairs, or loss of use – we enforce your claims for damages and review contractual clauses for validity. Protect your rights with competent legal support.

Der Beitrag Schiffsnachbesserung im Werkvertrag: Werft zur Zahlung von Schadensersatz verurteilt erschien zuerst auf R&U.