What remains for the victims of a rampage? – Archyworldys

Theoretically, a perpetrator who ruins someone else’s car while driving amok is liable for damages. But there is usually no money to be had from him. Comprehensive insurance can step in, and in extreme cases social assistance.

Please enable JavaScript

Linz/Vienna. A criminal crashes a rental car, robs a car at gunpoint, rams another vehicle with it and also damages street facilities in his rampage. This is what happened in Linz two weeks ago. Criminal law aspects immediately dominate the media: investigations are being made into attempted murder. But what is the legal position of third parties who are completely uninvolved in a so-called relationship act? The example of the stolen car clearly shows the (enforcement) problems.

Guest comments and contributions from external authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors.

Criminal law is not primarily of interest to people whose vehicles and other property were left behind in the course of a rampage. They want to be compensated for their damage. The perpetrator’s stay in prison does not help them to do this. Those affected must seek compensation themselves at the civil court (or with the private party connection in criminal proceedings). Prerequisites are according to the general rules of civil law: damage, causality, illegality and fault. In principle, the person who has damaged or destroyed the third-party item is liable for compensation. In “amok trials” the accused often invoke “insanity” and mean – at least in damage claims proceedings – “incapacity to commit a crime”. If the perpetrator gets through with this argument, he is not liable to the injured party for any damage incurred. Then there is no fault. This does not necessarily rule out being entitled to compensation. The civil court must examine whether the tortfeasor can be sentenced to full or partial compensation for reasons of equity (§ 1310 ABGB). Two cases in particular come into consideration: the perpetrator was able to see that his act was wrong in the specific situation, or the comparison of assets between the injuring party and the injured party makes compensation appear justified.