Luxury, boredom, loophole in the law? No compensation for lost bragging rights!

Why the LG Hamburg denied a sports car driver compensation for loss of use - and what this reveals about our case law.

When the 240,000 euro roadster is in the workshop

An accident at traffic lights, an exclusive Donkervoort GTO, 80 days of downtime - and a driver fighting over more than just repair costs. The man wanted compensation for not being able to use his sinfully expensive vehicle. But the Hamburg Regional Court ruled: no money for lost driving pleasure.

The plaintiff felt he was in the right - after all, he had not only been deprived of his mobility, but also of a part of his lifestyle. But the court saw things differently. Because he had a BMW Z4 or a BMW 3 Series at his disposal as a company car, the loss of use was not really "perceptible". And that is the crux of the matter: only those who feel a real disadvantage receive money.

Does only what you really "need" count?

The Donkervoort GTO is a vehicle for connoisseurs - light, loud, rare. But also: completely impractical for everyday use. According to the plaintiff, he used it for vacation trips, meetings with other car fans or family visits. In other words, primarily to be seen - not to get from A to B.

The LG Hamburg made it clear: loss of use is not about luxury or lifestyle, but about functional loss. Anyone who only uses a car for leisure activities and also owns a fully-fledged everyday vehicle simply has no compensable loss within the meaning of the law.

The court's plain language: "As is generally known, a BMW Z4 and a BMW 3 Series also offer sufficient possibilities to take a suitcase and, if necessary, your own tax advisor with you for meetings of any kind." Translated: A normal car is enough for everyday use - bragging rights don't count.

Car love in court - feelings have no price

Of course it hurts when you can't drive your dream car - especially if you bought it as a status symbol or a project close to your heart. But the law doesn't measure in emotions, but in objective financial disadvantages. And this is only the case if there is a genuine need to use the car that is not covered by a reasonable replacement vehicle.

If you own two cars - one for everyday use, one for the wow effect - you cannot claim that the "nicer" one is not available at the moment. What counts for the law: Mobility yes, vanity no.

Frontal attack on the passion for cars

This can be seen as a sober decision - but also as a sign of how little room our justice system leaves for emotionality in road traffic.

Because quite honestly, in a world in which electric scooters count as a means of transportation but a 240,000 euro roadster is legally just a toy, you have to ask yourself: is this still fair or just pragmatic? Perhaps we will soon need an "emotional damage law" - for all those who don't just drive their car, but feel it. Until then: bragging is not a damage position.