Rottweil Regional Court dismisses lawsuit for alleged coronavirus vaccination damage
The 58-year-old plaintiff demanded compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of 150,000 euros due to a massive deterioration in the vision in his right eye, among other things. He also wanted the civil proceedings to establish that he should be compensated for all material and other non-material damages resulting from the health impairment.
The chamber therefore did not have to decide whether the eye infarction he 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 conditions.
Accordingly, the plaintiff was 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.
Read also:
- This will change in December
- German activists speak out in Dubai on suffering in Israel and the Gaza Strip
- Nuclear fusion - hype or solution to energy problems?
- Budget crisis fuels debate on citizen's income - Bas warns against populism
- Despite claiming Coronavirus vaccine damage, the Rottweil Regional Court dismissed the lawsuit due to insufficient justification.
- Because of this dismissal, the 58-year-old plaintiff now has one month to appeal at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court.
- The court indicated that the plaintiff relied on unsubstantiated reports and non-scientific opinions, which were not sufficient to prove vaccine damage.
- According to the regional court, the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to prove that the corona vaccine was the cause of his eye infarction.
Source: www.stern.de
