Judgment on diesel thermal windows
BGH releases engine manufacturers from liability
7/10/2023 7:29 p.m
In principle, motorists are entitled to compensation if the engine in their car has been tampered with. The BGH has now clarified the most recent judgment on thermal windows again: Only the manufacturer of the vehicle can be sued.
Car buyers affected by the diesel scandal will not receive any compensation from the manufacturer of a modified engine installed in vehicles from another car manufacturer. That’s what he said Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe and thus dismissed the lawsuit of a vehicle owner whose Porsche had an Audi engine installed. In principle, claims for damages cannot be directed to the manufacturer of the engine, but should be directed to the manufacturer of the car, said the presiding judge of the Diesel Senate, Eva Menges, in the verdict. The carmaker issues the buyers of the vehicles it manufactures with a certificate that the car meets European standards and guarantees compliance with all legal acts. The engine manufacturer has nothing to do with it.
This so-called certificate of conformity must be enclosed with each car by the manufacturer. It certifies that everything is in order with the car and that it complies with EU legal requirements. Also, in the present case, there is no intentional immoral intention on the part of the engine manufacturer. He is therefore to be regarded neither as an assistant nor an accomplice of the car manufacturer Porsche.
BGH: Car buyers must prove that the switch-off device is available
A man who bought a used Porsche Macan in 2019, which had the Audi EA897 engine equipped with an illegal defeat device, had sued Audi. Vehicles with these engines were recalled by the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) because of manipulated exhaust gas values and a software update was ordered. The buyer had been successful before the district court in Osnabrück and had largely been awarded the value of the car minus the use. But he failed before the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg. Rightly so, as the Diesel Senate has now decided.
The man was also unable to explain whether Audi, as the engine manufacturer, had already removed the defeat device in the car at the time of purchase with the software update or whether this only happened after the contract was concluded. Instead, the man referred to “ignorance”. That is also not enough to justify liability, Menges had already said during the morning hearing. The BGH also referred to its judgment of June 26th. Accordingly, the car buyer has to prove that a defeat device, impermissible or not, is available at all. (Ref.: VIa ZR 1119/22)