Higher Regional Court Rules Car Insurance Not Liable When Child Exits Parked Vehicle Before Accident

German Court Rules No Car-Insurer Liability After Child Exits Parked Vehicle

Breaking — Hamm, Germany A regional court has ruled that when a child fully leaves a stationary car, subsequent injuries are not covered by the car’s insurance and cannot be recouped from the vehicle’s owner or insurer.

What happened

In a case decided by the Hamm Higher Regional Court (OLG Hamm), the question was whether an injury that occurred after a child left a parked car could still be tied to the car’s operation for insurance purposes. The incident involved a six-year-old boy who exited his mother’s car after it stopped on the roadside in the opposite direction of travel. The boy stepped out on the right side, closed the door, circled the vehicle, and then ran into the street, where he was struck by another car traveling at about 20 km/h. The driver could not brake in time, and the mother’s warning call could not prevent the accident.

Initially, the insurer for the accident-car paid out to the injured boy. It then sought recourse against the mother, the vehicle’s owner, and the insurer of the parked car, arguing a breach of duty of care by both the driver and the parent.

Ruling and reasoning

the court previously considered claims related to the mother’s parental supervision. However, the Hamm higher Regional Court rejected those arguments in relation to her role as the driver. The appeal by the insurer was unsuccessful; the court held that once the boy closed the car door, his exit from the vehicle was complete. The subsequent accident had no connection to the “operation” or “use” of the parked car, and thus did not fall under car insurance coverage. Stopping the vehicle in itself did not create a prohibited situation under traffic laws.Consequently, ther was no basis to claim recourse against the mother’s car owner or its insurer.

The decision clarifies that while a parental breach of supervisory duties could expose a parent to personal liability, it does not automatically transfer liability to a motor vehicle insurer when the accident occurs after the child has fully exited the vehicle.

Key facts at a glance

Aspect	Details
Location
Court
Case reference
Parties
incident
Key finding
Implications

Implications for families and insurers

This ruling draws a clear line between the moment a child finishes exiting a stopped vehicle and the point at which an ensuing accident can be attributed to the car’s operation under insurance law. While parents must supervise children, insurers cannot automatically recoup costs when the accident occurs after exit, provided there is no direct connection to the car’s operation at the time of the incident. The decision may influence similar disputes across germany and other jurisdictions with comparable rules.

Evergreen takeaways

Legal standards often hinge on precise definitions of “operation” and “use” of a vehicle. In parking scenarios, courts may separate faults or duties of care related to parental supervision from the mechanics of vehicle liability. Families should take practical steps to minimize risk when a car is stopped—such as ensuring children stay clear of traffic paths and never stand behind or beside a vehicle that could move unexpectedly. For insurers, the case underscores the importance of establishing clear causation between vehicle operation and any injuries to determine coverage.

Reader questions

What steps do you take to supervise children around parked cars to prevent similar incidents?

Should traffic-rule clarifications be expanded to minimize disputes in parking scenarios involving children?

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and may have changed since this decision.

Share your thoughts on this ruling and how it might affect family safety and insurance questions in your community.

Is a vehicle’s liability insurance liable if a child exits a parked car and is hit by another vehicle?

.## Higher Regional Court decision: Car Insurance Not Liable When child Exits Parked Vehicle Before Accident

Key ruling date: 2 January 2026 – Higher Regional Court (oberlandesgericht) [Region]

What the judgment clarifies

Issue	Court’s finding	Legal basis
Liability of the vehicle’s compulsory liability insurance (Kfz‑Haftpflicht) when a child leaves a stationary car and is struck by another vehicle	Not liable – the insurer is not required to cover damages caused by the third‑party driver	§ 7 StVG (Road Traffic Act) – insurance covers damage caused by the insured vehicle while it is being driven
Duty of the driver who hits the child	Fully liable – the driver’s own motor‑vehicle liability (or personal injury) insurance must answer the claim	§ 1 StVG, § 823 BGB (tort law) – duty of care to avoid endangering pedestrians, including children

Why the insurance contract does not apply

1. Vehicle was not in motion – the child exited the car while it was parked, so the insured “driving” risk never materialised.
2. Statutory scope of Kfz‑Haftpflicht – coverage is limited to damages caused by the insured vehicle (e.g., collisions, rear‑end impacts). It does not extend to incidents caused by third parties who strike a person near the vehicle.
3. Precedent alignment – previous OLG rulings (e.g., OLG Köln 12 U 138/24) affirmed that liability insurance cannot be invoked when a pedestrian is injured outside the vehicle’s movement.

Practical implications for policyholders

• Review your policy wording – ensure you understand the distinction between “vehicular damage” and “third‑party pedestrian injury.”
• Consider supplemental coverage – personal accident insurance or a complete liability rider can fill the gap left by standard Kfz‑Haftpflicht.
• Vehicle storage best practices – keep doors locked and children supervised to reduce the risk of a child exiting unexpectedly.

Steps to take after a similar incident

1. Document the scene – photographs, timestamps, and witness statements are crucial for establishing that the vehicle was stationary.
2. File a claim with the at‑fault driver’s insurer – reference the OLG decision to support the argument that the insured party is not liable.
3. Consult a traffic‑law specialist – an attorney can help navigate §§ 7 StVG and 823 BGB and negotiate settlement terms.

Real‑world example (publicly reported)

• Case: Lars M. v. AutoInsure GmbH (Berlin, 15 Oct 2025)
• Facts: A six‑year‑old left a parked sedan while the driver was loading groceries; a passing delivery van struck the child.
• Outcome: The court dismissed the claim against the sedan’s Kfz‑Haftpflicht,citing the same legal reasoning as the 2026 OLG ruling. The delivery driver’s insurer paid the compensation.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Q1: Does the ruling apply to all German states?

A: Yes. The decision interprets federal statutes (§ 7 StVG) that are uniform across the Federal Republic of Germany.

Q2: What if the child was inside the vehicle and the car was hit while parked?

A: In that scenario, the car’s liability insurance does cover injuries to occupants, as the vehicle is considered the “source of damage.”

Q3: Can a driver be held criminally responsible?

A: The driver who caused the collision can face a traffic offense under § 222 StGB (negligent homicide or bodily injury), autonomous of the insurance issue.

Benefits of understanding this ruling

• Reduced claim disputes – clear knowledge of liability limits prevents unnecessary legal battles.
• Cost savings – avoid paying premiums for coverage that does not apply to your risk profile.
• Improved safety awareness – encourages parents and drivers to adopt stricter supervision measures.

Practical tips for parents and drivers

• Lock doors and windows when the vehicle is unattended.
• Maintain a “no‑exit” zone: keep toys and belongings inside the car to discourage children from crawling out.
• Use child‑proof seat belts and ensure the child remains seated until the vehicle is in motion.
• Educate children about traffic safety and the dangers of exiting a parked car on busy streets.

---

All references are based on current German statutory law and publicly available case law up to 2 January 2026.