Rottweil Regional Court - Man sues Biontech for 150,000 euros in damages - judges dismiss vaccine damage claim
On Wednesday, the Rottweil Regional Court dismissed a lawsuit for alleged damage caused by a coronavirus vaccination. The plaintiff was a 58-year-old man. He accuses the vaccine manufacturer Biontech of causing almost complete blindness in his right eye as a result of a coronavirus vaccination. The man is demanding 150,000 euros in compensation for pain and suffering from the Mainz-based company and a declaration that he must be compensated for all further damages. However, the 2nd Civil Chamber did not consider the requirements for claims to be met, as the Regional Court announced. The plaintiff has one month to appeal against the ruling.
Accordingly, the chamber did not have to decide whether the eye infarction suffered was caused by the coronavirus vaccine. According to the law, the vaccine manufacturer is liable for side effects if the medicinal product has harmful effects when used as intended that go beyond what is justifiable according to scientific knowledge or if the damage occurred as a result of labeling, specialist information or instructions for use that do not correspond to the state of scientific knowledge. The court ruled that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient justification for either of these requirements.
Action against Biontech: Plaintiff's justification insufficient
The plaintiff was therefore unable to provide the information requested by the Chamber on alleged errors in the approval procedure or on new scientific findings in the meantime that would lead to a changed assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Instead, he relied on unsubstantiated reports of suspected vaccine damage, individual opinions taken from the Internet, non-scientific opinions from doctors commissioned by him and factually incorrect criticism of the safety reports of the Paul Ehrlich Institute, which is responsible for vaccines.
With regard to the plaintiff's allegation that the vaccine was particularly dangerous, the Chamber stated that the information in the vaccine manufacturer's instructions for use, according to which the occurrence of side effects unknown at the time of approval could not be ruled out with certainty, was sufficient. According to the court, there was no breach of duty or fault for liability in the event of negligent impairment of health. The plaintiff has one month to appeal against the ruling at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court.
This is not the first case of its kind in Germany. Nor is it the first decision by a court in this context.
Read also:
- Snow chaos further restricts Bavaria
- Unanimous decision: faster wolf culls possible
- The year of climate records: extreme is the new normal
- Snow and ice paralyze southern Germany
Source: www.stern.de
