Schmerzensgeld and Personal Injury: What Is Compensated and Who Enforces It
After a no-fault accident with injury, the party at fault and their liability insurer owe not only the vehicle damage but also Schmerzensgeld, lost earnings, household-help damages, damaged personal items and your lawyer's cost.
What we are responsible for — and what we are not
Read this paragraph first. We are vehicle experts (Kfz-Sachverständige). We assess vehicles, not people. We are not responsible for personal injury, and we offer no service for it.
This page is general information for orientation. It is not a legal service within the meaning of the German Legal Services Act (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz): we do not review your individual case, we do not assess claims, we do not put a figure on Schmerzensgeld for you, we do not correspond with the insurer, and we do not enforce anything on your behalf. What is written here is general and may not fit your case.
The person who enforces a personal-injury claim is a lawyer whom you choose and you instruct. We expressly recommend this step — and we do not broker it. We do not name a law firm to you, we do not pass your data to any law firm, there is no form on this page, and no money flows between us and lawyers in either direction. The regional bar associations (Rechtsanwaltskammern) maintain public directories; the choice remains entirely yours.
And one more thing: we never ask you about your health anywhere. Details of injuries, diagnoses or sick notes belong with your doctor and your lawyer, not with us.
Personal injury splits into a non-material part — Schmerzensgeld under § 253 Abs. 2 BGB and § 11 Satz 2 StVG — and material items such as lost earnings, household-help damages, medical treatment costs and damaged personal items. These items are not settled against a table, but estimated by the court under § 287 ZPO, based on what the injured party specifically sets out. That is exactly where laypeople fail — not on the entitlement, but on the presentation of the case.
Comprehensive-cover case (Kaskofall): comprehensive insurance (Kaskoversicherung) covers only damage to your own vehicle. Schmerzensgeld, lost earnings and household-help damages are not covered there — separate products such as personal-accident or driver-protection insurance exist for that.
This reflects German law and German court practice.
The five items in detail
Schmerzensgeld (pain-and-suffering compensation, § 253 Abs. 2 BGB). What matters is the severity of the injuries, the suffering involved, its duration, the extent to which it was perceived, and the degree of fault. The Erdmann grade of a whiplash injury (HWS-Distorsion) is a reference point, not a formula. Pre-existing conditions do not reduce the amount after the fact — they are factored into the assessment from the outset.
Lost earnings (Verdienstausfall, §§ 842, 843 Abs. 1, 252 BGB, § 11 Satz 1 StVG). You are compensated for what you would have earned net without the accident. Because your employer and health insurer already cover part of this, the claim passes to them by operation of law to that extent (§ 6 EFZG, § 116 SGB X). For the self-employed, lost profit takes the place of wages — which makes the evidence considerably more demanding.
Household-help damages (Haushaltsführungsschaden, § 843 Abs. 1 BGB). This arises even where no one is hired and family members step in unpaid. If you hire help, their gross wage counts; if you settle without hiring help, compensation follows the net wage of a notional helper. This is the one place — and the only place — where the notional/actual settlement distinction returns.
Clothing, glasses, protective gear (§ 249 Abs. 2 Satz 1 BGB). Property damage. Generally compensated at current value (Zeitwert), determined by straight-line depreciation over the estimated useful life. A motorcycle helmet that has been in a crash must be replaced, even if it shows no visible damage.
Lawyer's fees. The cost of legal pursuit is part of the damage, to the extent that instructing a lawyer was, from your perspective, necessary and appropriate.
Also known as
- personal injury compensation German car accident
- German whiplash claim compensation
- HWS-Distorsion
- how much pain and suffering money Germany accident
- lost earnings claim after German road accident
- household help damages claim Germany
- German pain and suffering table
- Schmerzensgeld
The numbers
| Value | Meaning | Source | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| rund 1,000 € je Monat | Schmerzensgeld for a grade-I HWS-Distorsion with accompanying injuries that healed without lasting effects, per month of at least 50 percent incapacity — one Higher Regional Court's line, not a nationwide value | KG 22 U 196/06 | 03.09.2007 |
| 1,500 € | Schmerzensgeld for a grade-II HWS-Distorsion, symptoms lasting at most three months | AG Darmstadt 316 C 151/15 | 28.04.2016 |
| 3,500 € | Schmerzensgeld despite reference to the €1,000 line — more was not appropriate because of a pre-existing susceptibility to harm | OLG Hamm I-7 U 4/18 | 13.04.2018 |
| kein bundesweiter Betrag | "Grade-I HWS = amount X" cannot be substantiated; an overall assessment is required | BGH VI ZR 937/20 | 15.02.2022 |
| 6 Wochen | Continued pay by the employer during no-fault incapacity to work | § 3 Abs. 1 Satz 1 EFZG | abgerufen 28.08.2026 |
| 70 % / 90 % | Statutory sick pay (Krankengeld): 70 percent of standard gross pay, capped at 90 percent of net pay | § 47 Abs. 1 SGB V | abgerufen 28.08.2026 |
| 8.50 € bis 10.00 € je Stunde | Hourly rate for a notional settlement of simple housework | OLG Frankfurt a. M. 22 U 97/16 | 18.10.2018 |
| 17.00 € je Stunde | Witness compensation rate for loss of household capacity; whether this sets a floor is disputed | § 21 Satz 1 JVEG; for it LG Tübingen 5 O 9/24, against it BGH VI ZR 12/24 | 25.03.2025 |
| 5 / 6 / 8 / 12 Jahre | Useful life of a motorcycle helmet, boots, gloves and back protector for calculating current value | LG Duisburg 6 O 434/05 | 20.02.2007 |
Worked example
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Gross pay before the accident, monthly | 4,400.00 € |
| Net pay before the accident, monthly | 2,600.00 € |
| Krankengeld: 70% of standard gross pay | 3,080.00 € |
| Cap: 90% of net pay — this value applies | 2,340.00 € |
| Shortfall per month of Krankengeld | 260.00 € |
Result: Your employer continues your pay for the first six weeks; you have no shortfall then, and the claim for that period passes to the employer (§ 6 Abs. 1 EFZG). For the remaining roughly seven weeks, about €415 remains uncovered, plus the pension, unemployment and long-term-care insurance contributions withheld from Krankengeld. The health insurer claims the Krankengeld share itself (§ 116 SGB X); where the liability share is not enough to cover all claims, your own claim takes priority (§ 116 Abs. 4 SGB X). And compensation for lost earnings is itself taxable: in 2024 the Bundesfinanzhof ruled that even the reimbursement of the tax on it is again subject to income tax (BFH IX R 5/23).
What the insurer typically writes
These are paraphrased summaries of typical settlement-letter reasoning, not verbatim quotes from one specific letter.
The bracketed English text is a translation aid only.
„Ein ärztlicher Nachweis einer unfallbedingten Primärverletzung liegt nicht vor.“ (English: "There is no medical evidence of an accident-related primary injury.")
„Die kollisionsbedingte Geschwindigkeitsänderung lag unterhalb der Harmlosigkeitsgrenze. Eine Verletzung ist technisch nicht plausibel.“ (English: "The collision-related speed change was below the harmlessness threshold. An injury is not technically plausible.")
„Zum Haushaltsführungsschaden fehlt konkreter Vortrag. Der Verweis auf einen Grad der Minderung der Erwerbsfähigkeit genügt nicht.“ (English: "There is no specific case set out for the household-help claim. Reference to a disability percentage is not enough.")
„Der Verdienstausfall ist durch Entgeltfortzahlung und Krankengeld bereits ausgeglichen.“ (English: "The lost earnings are already covered by continued pay and Krankengeld.")
„Mit unserer Zahlung sind sämtliche Ansprüche aus dem Unfall, auch künftige, abgegolten.“ (English: "Our payment settles all claims from the accident, including future ones.")
„In diesem einfach gelagerten Fall war die Einschaltung eines Rechtsanwalts nicht erforderlich.“ (English: "In this simple case, instructing a lawyer was not necessary.")
Why you should not handle this alone
There is deliberately no sample wording here. A template letter for personal injury would either be so generic it is useless, or so specific it would amount to legal advice for an individual case. Instead, here are the six points where injured parties without a lawyer regularly fail:
- Two different standards of proof. That you were injured at all, you must prove in full under § 286 ZPO; only the extent of the consequences is subject to the relaxed standard of § 287 ZPO. Someone who only sees a doctor weeks later loses out here — not because the doctor's visit is itself a precondition for the claim, but because the evidence is missing.
- The harmlessness threshold is an objection, not a law of nature. The Bundesgerichtshof has refused to rule out an injury solely because of a low speed change (VI ZR 139/02). You need to know this objection in order to counter it.
- Household-help damages demand diligent work. Reference tables do not replace the factual case (OLG Frankfurt a. M. 22 U 97/16); one Higher Regional Court even considers them unsuitable (OLG Celle 14 U 154/18). What is required is a concrete description of the tasks before and after the accident.
- Part of your claim no longer belongs to you. Your employer and social insurers acquire it by operation of law. Anyone who overlooks this claims too much.
- The settlement declaration is the most dangerous signature in the whole process. A Schmerzensgeld award covers all consequences that have occurred and all that are objectively foreseeable (BGH VI ZR 325/99). For what comes later, you need a declaratory application (Feststellungsantrag) — a claim confirmed by final judgment only becomes time-barred after 30 years (§ 197 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 BGB).
- You have your own obligations. Remaining earning capacity must be used to the extent reasonable, or notional income is credited against you (BGH VI ZR 91/19).
Our contribution ends at the vehicle: how the accident happened, the impact configuration and technical findings sit in our report and are often the basis on which a later medical assessment builds. Assessing your injuries is not part of that.
What the insurer typically does next
- It pays a partial Schmerzensgeld and waits to see how things develop further.
- It commissions a technical or biomechanical report to argue the injury is implausible. Whether that is necessary depends on the individual case (BGH VI ZR 274/07).
- It asks for a broad waiver of medical confidentiality, to research with doctors and health insurers itself. The scope is negotiable.
- It offers a settlement in exchange for a settlement declaration — the point at which future claims are lost.
On the deadline: a review period of four to six weeks from complete documents is usual; for personal injury it takes longer because the medical course is awaited. Set a specific payment deadline; if the insurer does not respond, it falls into default (Verzug, § 286 BGB). Claims generally become time-barred after three years, counted to the end of the year (§ 195, § 199 Abs. 1 BGB), and for harm to body or health at the latest 30 years after the accident (§ 199 Abs. 2 BGB). As long as your claim is notified to the insurer, the limitation period is suspended until its decision reaches you in text form (§ 115 Abs. 2 Satz 3 VVG).
This reflects German law and German court practice.
Case law
| Court | Case number | Date | Key finding | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BGH | VI ZR 937/20 | 15.02.2022 | Leading decision. What matters is severity, suffering, duration, perception and the degree of fault; a "day-precise calculation" is impermissible — a single, uniform award must be fixed. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=15.02.2022&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+937%2F20 |
| BGH | VI ZR 139/02 | 28.01.2003 | An HWS injury may not be ruled out solely because of a low speed change; it remains a matter for the individual case, § 286 ZPO. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=28.01.2003&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+139%2F02 |
| BGH | VI ZR 274/07 | 08.07.2008 | No schematic harmlessness threshold even for a frontal collision; the scope of the assessment depends on the individual case. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.07.2008&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+274%2F07 |
| KG | 22 U 196/06 | 03.09.2007 | Grade-I HWS-Distorsion with accompanying injuries healed without lasting effects: generally around €1,000 per month of at least 50 percent incapacity. | dejure.org, ohne eigenen Leitsatz; Rechtssatz in dejure-Volltextauszügen späterer KG-Entscheidungen (VersR 2007, 1708) |
| AG Darmstadt | 316 C 151/15 | 28.04.2016 | €1,500 for a grade-II HWS-Distorsion with symptoms lasting at most three months. | https://www.openjur.de |
| OLG Hamm | I-7 U 4/18 | 13.04.2018 | Opposing position. Reference to the €1,000 line does not lead to more than €3,500 where the symptoms rest on a pre-existing susceptibility to harm. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Hamm&Datum=13.04.2018&Aktenzeichen=I-7+U+4%2F18 |
| BGH | VI ZR 325/99 | 20.03.2001 | A Schmerzensgeld award covers only consequences that have occurred, are recognisable, and are objectively foreseeable; an interest in a declaratory finding remains for unforeseeable later damage. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=20.03.2001&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+325%2F99 |
| BGH | VI ZR 91/19 | 21.09.2021 | Opposing position. Where the duty to mitigate damage is breached, achievable notional income is credited against the lost-earnings compensation. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=21.09.2021&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+91%2F19 |
| BFH | IX R 5/23 | 15.10.2024 | Compensation for lost earnings is taxable; even the reimbursement of the tax on it is itself subject to income tax. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BFH&Datum=15.10.2024&Aktenzeichen=IX+R+5%2F23 |
| BGH | VI ZR 12/24 | 05.11.2024 | Notional household-help damages: guided by the net wage of a helper, or the gross wage where help was actually hired. The trial court must disclose its estimation basis; § 21 JVEG is not suitable for that. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=05.11.2024&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+12%2F24 |
| BGH | VI ZR 183/08 | 03.02.2009 | Absent other indications, the trial court may orient itself on the Schulz-Borck/Hofmann reference tables. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/ |
| OLG Frankfurt a. M. | 22 U 97/16 | 18.10.2018 | Tables do not replace the factual case, they serve as a plausibility check; notionally €8.50 per hour, up to €10 depending on circumstances. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/ |
| OLG Celle | 14 U 154/18 | 26.06.2019 | Opposing position to all reference tables. It found the tables unsuitable for the estimate: inconsistencies, no link to the specific damage, arbitrary values. An express departure from its own earlier case law. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/ |
| LG Tübingen | 5 O 9/24 | 25.03.2025 | Treats § 21 JVEG as the floor set by the legislature — expressly against BGH VI ZR 12/24. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+T%C3%BCbingen&Datum=25.03.2025&Aktenzeichen=5+O+9%2F24 |
| OLG Celle | 14 U 37/20 | 05.08.2020 | Glasses and a jacket are subject to wear; a "new-for-old" deduction applies via straight-line depreciation. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/ |
| LG Duisburg | 6 O 434/05 | 20.02.2007 | Motorcycle protective gear also loses value. Useful life: helmet 5, boots 6, gloves 8, back protector 12 years; current value is what counts. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/ |
| AG Essen | 24 C 436/04 | 23.08.2005 | Older opposing line: no "new-for-old" deduction for accident-damaged motorcycle clothing. | https://verkehrslexikon.de/ |
| BGH | VI ZR 3/94 | 08.11.1994 | Opposing position. In simple cases with clear liability, a lawyer is not necessary for the first assertion of the claim; the fees are then not reimbursable. | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.11.1994&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+3%2F94 |
Frequently asked questions
Do I get Schmerzensgeld if I have whiplash?
Yes, if the injury is evidenced. A low impact speed alone does not rule it out — the Bundesgerichtshof has rejected a fixed harmlessness threshold. You must provide the evidence.
How much Schmerzensgeld do I get for whiplash?
It depends on the course, not the grade alone. Published decisions range from around €1,000 per month of serious incapacity to €1,500 for three months of symptoms up to €3,500.
Do I need to see a doctor to get Schmerzensgeld?
A doctor's visit is not a statutory precondition, but is practically essential. You must fully prove that you were injured. Without prompt medical records, that rarely succeeds. See a doctor early.
Who pays my lost earnings if I am signed off sick?
Your employer continues your pay for six weeks, then your health insurer pays Krankengeld. The liability insurer owes the difference to your previous net pay. Employer and insurer recover their own shares themselves.
Who pays for household help and childcare if I cannot manage?
The party at fault, even where family members step in unpaid. You must specifically set out which tasks you did before and what you can no longer do. A percentage alone is not enough.
Who replaces my broken clothing, glasses or motorcycle gear?
The liability insurer, usually at current value. Courts deduct "new-for-old" for worn clothing and glasses, applying straight-line depreciation. A helmet that has been in a crash must be replaced.
Who pays my lawyer after a no-fault accident?
The party at fault, where liability is clear, because pursuing the claim is necessary and appropriate. The exception concerns simple cases. An accident with injuries is regularly not one of those.
Sources
- BGH, Urteil vom 15.02.2022, Az. VI ZR 937/20 (NJW 2022, 1953; VersR 2022, 712) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=15.02.2022&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+937%2F20
- BGH, Urteil vom 28.01.2003, Az. VI ZR 139/02 (NJW 2003, 1116) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=28.01.2003&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+139%2F02
- BGH, Urteil vom 08.07.2008, Az. VI ZR 274/07 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.07.2008&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+274%2F07
- KG, Urteil vom 03.09.2007, Az. 22 U 196/06 — dort ohne eigenen Leitsatz geführt (VersR 2007, 1708) — dejure.org, ohne eigenen Leitsatz
- AG Darmstadt, Urteil vom 28.04.2016, Az. 316 C 151/15 — https://www.openjur.de
- OLG Hamm, Beschluss vom 13.04.2018, Az. I-7 U 4/18 — Volltext NRWE — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+Hamm&Datum=13.04.2018&Aktenzeichen=I-7+U+4%2F18
- BGH, Urteil vom 20.03.2001, Az. VI ZR 325/99 (NJW 2001, 3414) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=20.03.2001&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+325%2F99
- BGH, Urteil vom 21.09.2021, Az. VI ZR 91/19 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=21.09.2021&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+91%2F19
- BFH, Urteil vom 15.10.2024, Az. IX R 5/23 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BFH&Datum=15.10.2024&Aktenzeichen=IX+R+5%2F23
- BGH, Urteil vom 05.11.2024, Az. VI ZR 12/24 (NJW 2025, 1128) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=05.11.2024&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+12%2F24
- BGH, Urteil vom 03.02.2009, Az. VI ZR 183/08 (NJW 2009, 2060) — https://verkehrslexikon.de/
- OLG Frankfurt a. M., Urteil vom 18.10.2018, Az. 22 U 97/16 — https://verkehrslexikon.de/
- OLG Celle, Urteil vom 26.06.2019, Az. 14 U 154/18 — https://verkehrslexikon.de/
- LG Tübingen, Urteil vom 25.03.2025, Az. 5 O 9/24 — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=LG+T%C3%BCbingen&Datum=25.03.2025&Aktenzeichen=5+O+9%2F24
- OLG Celle, Urteil vom 05.08.2020, Az. 14 U 37/20 — https://verkehrslexikon.de/
- LG Duisburg, Urteil vom 20.02.2007, Az. 6 O 434/05 — https://verkehrslexikon.de/
- AG Essen, Urteil vom 23.08.2005, Az. 24 C 436/04 — https://verkehrslexikon.de/
- BGH, Urteil vom 08.11.1994, Az. VI ZR 3/94 (BGHZ 127, 348 = NJW 1995, 446) — https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=08.11.1994&Aktenzeichen=VI+ZR+3%2F94
- § 195, § 197 Abs. 1 Nr. 3, § 199, § 249, § 252, § 253 Abs. 2, § 842, § 843 BGB · § 11 StVG · § 115 VVG · § 256, § 286, § 287 ZPO · § 3 Abs. 1, § 6 Abs. 1 EFZG · § 47 Abs. 1 SGB V · § 116 SGB X · § 21 Satz 1 JVEG — gesetze-im-internet.de, abgerufen am 28.08.2026