Lawyer Wieschemann commented the decision of the OLG Hamm with regard to the claim of amateur kickers in the amount of EUR 50 000 as a lawyer of the defendant for the MIRROR.
The report 27.11.2012:
50,000 euros damages for a straddle: footballers have to stick for rude fouls, ruled the higher regional court of Hamm on Monday and was so fierce discussions among amateur. But can breathe on: the ruling only applies to gross recklessness.
Spread henceforth forbidden? One might suspect that after the recent verdict of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm against a Dortmund amateur footballers. Was the outcry in football circles, a debate broke out. The players Union VdV found accurate judgment. Leisure kicker had the worry that they now have to fear when each straddle to be asked by a court to pay however.
“Quite clearly: No.” It’s going to grossly reckless fouls”, says Christian Nubbemeyer, press officer of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm. At risk sports like football always something could happen. No one should be liable for violations occurring in the context of “offer hardship”, as stated in the judgment. However, for example the ball not in close, if a player to straddle his opponents brutally, then make himself liable.
In the ruling on Monday, the Oberlandesgericht Hamm had confirmed a claim of a while, had suffered a serious injury in a Dortmund district division in April 2010 by a rough foul. The Court was that footballer for rude foul games with injuries can be made civilly liable.
“We see this as well, and recklessness is also absolutely right,” he says Lawyer of the accused, Christof Wieschemann, MIRROR ONLINE. “But in amateur football, it is incredibly difficult to prove whether the foul was now reckless or not, because there are no cameras, but only testimony.”
Dortmund disputes the Defender had gegrätscht his opponent in the hollow of the knee. There he hurt him so hard that this good two and a half years after the foul not yet may pursue his profession as a painter and Varnisher. Wieschemann judged as unfortunate situation in relation to the hardness of the offer. However, the verdict States that the player “had significantly exceeded the border area of the hardness of the yet-to-be-there”.
In principle, the judgment is nothing new, in amateur football, it always reflects such cases. So the hammer refers to earlier decisions of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) of 1976 and 2010 Court “The Court of appeal wanted to concisely bring only valid case law awareness”, says spokesman Nubbemeyer.
The DFB sees things differently. “The ruling has implications for the whole football”, DFB Vice President Karl Rothmund said. However, such sentences in professional football in comparison to the amateur leagues are rare, since the professional footballers as an employee only when intentionally caused injuries, rather than on gross negligence must adhere.
In August, the former Bochum football player Matías Concha had failed with a lawsuit against his former opponent Macchambes Younga-Mouhani Union Berlin before the District Court of Berlin-Tegel. Concha had broken down into game 1 on December 6, 2010 during a clash with Younga-Mouhani the tibia and fibula FC Union and redress sued his opponent up to 200,000 euros.
In case of Dortmund, the liability of the accused player takes over the 50,000 euros damages. “I recommend a casualty and liability insurance any amateur kicker. Otherwise the evil can have consequences”, says Lawyer Wieschemann.