This article examines, on the basis of a recent judgement by Mannheim Local Court dated 17 December 2025, the circumstances under which victims of accidents may consider it necessary to engage the services of a traffic law specialist when their claim for damages is directed against a public authority or their own employer.
I. Introduction
There has always been debate as to the extent to which citizens should place greater trust in the administration’s adherence to the law and objectivity.1 After all, a public authority is bound by law in any case, and would therefore settle claims arising from a road traffic accident ex officio in accordance with the law. It is therefore not necessary to seek legal assistance.
The argument becomes even more vague when the party causing the damage is the injured party’s employer. In such cases, reference is often made to an inherent duty of loyalty within the ‘workplace family’. The promise of a straightforward in-house settlement is intended to persuade the injured party to forego costly external expertise. However, this overlooks the fact that, particularly in an employment relationship, there are dependencies that make independent representation of interests all the more essential.
The Mannheim Local Court recently clarified this point: neither any increased adherence to the law and objectivity on the part of a public authority, nor a duty of loyalty under employment law, negates the need to engage legal counsel.
II. The necessity of pre-litigation legal costs
According to the established case law of the Federal Court of Justice, the party causing the damage must reimburse those pre-trial legal costs which, in the view of the injured party, were necessary and appropriate for the protection of their rights.2 This assessment is always based on an ex ante perspective, i.e. the time at which the commission was awarded. No excessive requirements may be imposed in relation to the conditions for a substantive legal claim for reimbursement of costs.2
Admittedly, in very straightforward cases where liability is so clear from the outset that there is no reasonable doubt as to the obligation to pay compensation, it is occasionally assumed that the injured party may initially settle the claim themselves.3 However, the settlement of claims arising from a road traffic accident is not usually such a straightforward matter.4 This is particularly true with regard to the amount of damages: the legal assessment of virtually every single item of damage has been the subject of intense and controversial debate in case law and legal scholarship for years, and is constantly evolving.
It is questionable whether an exception should be made to these principles where the party causing the damage is a public authority that promises, in the course of its official duties, an objective and lawful settlement of the claim, or where the injured party’s own employer offers the prospect of a straightforward, in-house settlement. In such circumstances, is the injured party, as an exception, required to place their trust in the party responsible for the damage and, as part of their duty to minimise loss, to refrain initially from engaging a legal service provider?
III. The case before the Mannheim Local Court
The Mannheim Local Court now had the unique opportunity to clarify both of these issues in a single ruling. This was because, in the case in question, the two roles coincided: the party responsible for the damage was both a public authority and the employer of the injured party. The private vehicle of an employee at a police headquarters had been parked correctly on the premises when it was damaged by an official vehicle belonging to the police headquarters. The accident resulted in damage amounting to over €12,000.00. Shortly after the accident, the police officer responsible for handling the claim explained the individual steps of the claims process to the injured party and informed her that the state, as a self-insurer, would decide on the settlement.
The injured party nevertheless engaged a registered traffic law service provider. The defendant state settled the claim for property damage alone, but refused to reimburse the legal costs. The authority argued that engaging such a service had been neither necessary nor appropriate, as the injured party had been assured that the damage would be covered in full. As the injured party was herself an employee of the police headquarters, there had been no reason to doubt her objectivity. As they were colleagues within the police force, it was reasonable to expect the injured party to settle the claim herself.
IV. The court’s decision
The Mannheim Local Court ordered the defendant State, as requested, to pay the pre-trial legal costs.5 The court fully upheld the requirement for a formal appointment, thereby dismantling both the administrative and the employment-law „benefit of the doubt“. In doing so, it found that, given the amount of the loss – over €12,000.00 – this was not a minor loss and therefore not a straightforward case.6 The claimant had to come to terms with complex issues such as claiming fictitious or actual repair costs, the choice of garage, the flat-rate allowance for out-of-pocket expenses, and the reasonableness of the expert’s fee.
Particularly noteworthy are the court’s remarks on the alleged basis of trust: the economic interests of the injured party and the liable state were at odds with one another. The injured party was not obliged to assume that, where there were several justifiable positions, the defendant state would assess the damages in the manner most favourable to her. She was therefore entitled, from the relevant ex ante perspective, to seek legal advice acting exclusively in her own interests, even if she had been promised full compensation for her loss. Furthermore, the court emphasised the structural imbalance resulting precisely from the dual role of the party causing the damage: The injured party was in a weaker position from the outset, as she was in a relationship of subordination as a civil servant and, as a layperson in legal matters, was faced with the authority’s department staffed by lawyers.7
The court also followed established case law with regard to the amount of the fees: Irrespective of whether a solicitor or a registered legal service provider is commissioned to handle the claim, the pre-litigation legal costs are to be reimbursed at a rate of 1.3 times the standard fee under the Lawyers’ Fees Act (RVG). Work in road traffic accident cases does not, under any circumstances, constitute a mere debt collection service within the meaning of No. 2300(2) VV RVG, as the damages must first be determined, calculated and substantiated, and it is not merely a matter of debt recovery.8
V. Conclusion
The ruling by the Mannheim Local Court strengthens the position of victims of road traffic accidents in such circumstances: Even if the party responsible for the damage is a public authority or the injured party’s own employer, the injured party is entitled to engage legal counsel in order to ensure effective enforcement of the law, to safeguard the principle of equality of arms and to avoid conflicts of interest, and may subsequently claim reimbursement of the costs from the party responsible for the damage.
Footnotes
- See Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgement of 1 June 1959 – III ZR 49/58.
- See Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgement of 29 October 2019 – VI ZR 45/19.
- BeckOGK/Brand, BGB 2024, section 249, margin note 182; MüKoBGB/Oetker, 10th ed. 2025, section 249, margin note 185.
- See Federal Court of Justice (BGH), judgement of 29 October 2019 – VI ZR 45/19; Grüneberg, BGB, 83rd ed. 2024, § 249, para. 57.
- See Mannheim Local Court, judgment of 17 December 2025 – 11 C 3758/25, p. 2. – download
- See AG Mannheim, op. cit., p. 7.
- See AG Mannheim, op. cit., p. 8; see also, on the „equality of arms“: Hunecke, ‘Reimbursability of out-of-court legal costs’, NJW 2015, 3745, 3747.
- See AG Mannheim, op. cit., p. 8 ff.