Research analysis

Appearance

Research Report 02 (v02): Case Law Verification — Corrected & Expanded ​

Overview ​

Systematic re-verification of all rulings from v01, with corrections to mischaracterised holdings, expanded source verification, and new case law search. Each ruling was verified by fetching the actual source URL and reading the content. Where claims from v01 could not be confirmed, explicit corrections are noted.

Methodology: Every URL listed was fetched and its content read. Holdings are reported only as found in the source material. Claims that could not be verified are marked "UNABLE TO VERIFY" with explanation.

Part A: Re-Verified Rulings from v01 ​

1. BGH, 11.05.1971, VI ZR 11/70 (BGHZ 56, 146) — Foundational Kreuzungsräumer Principle [1] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — full-text references and 29 citing decisions confirmed.

Verified holding: Established the foundational rule that a driver entering a signal-controlled intersection [Kreuzung] on green must allow vehicles from the previous phase still present in the intersection (Nachzügler) to clear the area first. The green-light driver is generally protected by the Vertrauensgrundsatz against cross-traffic entering unlawfully from the side, but must nonetheless take Nachzügler into account. The Nachzügler must exercise heightened caution: "wer im Kreuzungsbereich aufgehalten worden ist, auf den möglicherweise nach 'grün' wieder einsetzenden Verkehr achten muss" (those detained in the intersection area must watch for traffic resuming after green). A Kreuzungsräumer who has waited a long time "darf nicht an- oder weiterfahren, ohne sich vergewissert zu haben, dass ein Zusammenstoß mit einfahrenden Kraftfahrzeugen ausgeschlossen ist" (must not drive off without verifying that a collision with entering vehicles is excluded).

Published: BGHZ 56, 146; NJW 1971, 1407; VersR 1971, 822

Relevance to case: Foundational authority. Neumann, if a genuine NachzĂĽgler, had a right to clear the intersection but was required to verify safety before doing so. Her admitted failure to look right ("nicht nach rechts geschaut") directly violates this duty.

2. BGH, 09.11.1976, VI ZR 264/75 — Standard 2/3 vs. 1/3 Split [2] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — confirmed by full-text references (rechtsportal.de, juris) and 20 citing decisions.

Verified holding: Confirmed and extended BGHZ 56, 146. The rule that the green-light driver must allow Kreuzungsräumer to clear applies even when a divided road with a median strip [Mittelstreifen] makes it unclear whether waiting vehicles are Nachzügler or new left-turners under § 9(3) StVO. The court explicitly rejected departing from BGHZ 56, 146. The standard baseline liability split for Kreuzungsräumer collisions is 2/3 for the green-light driver entering the intersection, 1/3 for the Kreuzungsräumer, though courts frequently deviate based on individual circumstances.

Published: NJW 1977, 1394; VersR 1977, 154

Relevance to case: Sets the default baseline. Under typical Kreuzungsräumer doctrine, Stiskalova (green-light driver) would bear 2/3. However, this baseline shifts significantly when the Kreuzungsräumer fails to look (see OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16) or when Rotlichtverstoß is established.

3. BGH, 03.12.1991, VI ZR 98/91 — Vertrauensgrundsatz [3] ​

Status: ✅ VERIFIED — with context clarification | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — full-text reference (Kanzlei Prof. Schweizer: "Vertrauensschutz für Linksabbieger bei grünem Pfeil"), 21 citing decisions.

Verified holding: The ruling concerns a green-arrow [Grünpfeil] situation, not a general green-light scenario. A left-turner following a green arrow "darf darauf vertrauen, daß noch ankommender Gegenverkehr durch Rotlicht gesperrt ist" (may trust that approaching opposing traffic is stopped by red light), and need not expect oncoming traffic to violate its red light "solange nicht konkrete Anhaltspunkte auf etwas anderes hindeuten" (as long as no concrete indications suggest otherwise). The broader principle — Vertrauensgrundsatz allows reliance on other road users obeying signals — is confirmed but the specific context is narrower than implied in v01.

⚠️ Correction from v01: v01 described this as "Vertrauensgrundsatz at Green" without adequately noting the green-arrow context. The broader Vertrauensgrundsatz principle for general green-light drivers entering intersections is sound (confirmed by BGH 04.04.2023, VI ZR 11/21 which cites this ruling for the general principle) but this specific ruling's facts involved a green arrow.

Published: NJW-RR 1992, 350; NZV 1992, 108; VersR 1992, 203

Relevance to case: The general Vertrauensgrundsatz principle supports Stiskalova: a driver on green may trust that cross-traffic obeys its signals. However, the principle does not protect against a duty to react to visible danger (e.g., seeing a vehicle moving into the path).

4. KG Berlin, 13.11.2003, 12 U 43/02 — Flying Start / Green Driver 100% Liable [4] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — full-text references (openjur.de, Wolters Kluwer), 5 citing decisions. Leitsatz: "Pflicht eines Fahrers zur Einstellung der Einfahrt in eine Kreuzung trotz grünen Ampellichts bei entsprechender Verkehrslage; Haftung des in eine Kreuzung einfahrenden Querverkehrs bei rechtzeitigem Erkennen eines Kreuzungsräumers."

Verified holding: A driver who entered the intersection with a "flying start" immediately upon green, seeing a Kreuzungsräumer already in the intersection, bears 100% liability. The green-light driver has no right to force the right of way against a vehicle already in motion in the intersection. "Das gilt erst recht, wenn der Einfahrende den Kreuzungsräumer sogar positiv wahrgenommen hat" (this applies especially when the entering driver has positively perceived the clearer).

⚠️ Note on case number: v1 analysis cited "12 U 43/03" — the correct citation is 12 U 43/02 (confirmed by dejure and the Verfahrensgang showing LG Berlin 24 O 118/00 → KG 12 U 43/02).

Published: NZV 2004, 574; MDR 2004, 570

Relevance to case: Works in Stiskalova's favour. If she stopped at red and waited for green (as per her Ereignisbeschreibung), this was NOT a "flying start" — she was a careful green-light entrant, not a reckless one.

5. OLG Hamm, 26.08.2016, 7 U 22/16 — Kreuzungsräumer 100% Liable After Extended Wait [5] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: verkehrsrechtonline.de article by RA Dirk Ketelsen confirmed; also cross-referenced by dejure (cited by KG 22 U 176/17, OLG ZweibrĂĽcken 1 U 18/20, OLG Brandenburg 12 U 77/24, OLG SaarbrĂĽcken 3 U 28/24).

Verified holding: The Kreuzungsräumer (defendant) entered the intersection on green, was detained by a left-turner queue behind the Fluchtlinie [projected kerb edge line], and waited while the signal for her direction "zeigte schon mehr als 20 Sekunden Rot" (had already shown more than 20 seconds of red). She then attempted to clear without checking for cross-traffic. The green-light driver (plaintiff) had had green for mindestens 19 Sekunden (at least 19 seconds) and another vehicle had already passed through before the collision. The Kreuzungsräumer was held 100% liable because: (a) the duty of care increases with the duration of the wait in the intersection; (b) after an extended wait, she could not drive off without verifying the crossing was safe; (c) the green-light driver had reason to trust the intersection was clear.

⚠️ Correction from v01: v01 claimed "approximately 40 seconds" waiting time. The actual source says the signal showed "mehr als 20 Sekunden Rot" (more than 20 seconds red). The figure "40 seconds" is not in the cited source. OLG Zweibrücken 1 U 18/20 describes the facts as "mindestens 23 Sekunden bei Rot" — also not 40 seconds. The "40 seconds" figure appears to have been fabricated or conflated with a different case. The correct characterisation is >20 seconds red.

Relevance to case: The strongest precedent for Stiskalova's position. Neumann's admission of "nicht nach rechts geschaut" (didn't look right) makes this case directly analogous — the Kreuzungsräumer drove off without checking.

6. KG Berlin, 13.06.2019, 22 U 176/17 — No Automatic Priority for Kreuzungsräumer [6] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — full-text references (Burhoff online, openjur.de, Entscheidungsdatenbank Berlin, RA Kotz), 4 citing decisions. Official title: "Mithaftung des Vorfahrtsberechtigten nach Kollision im Kreuzungsbereich."

Verified holding: The ruling addresses the conditions for genuine NachzĂĽgler (intersection clearer) status and dismissed the claim because the claimant failed to prove genuine NachzĂĽgler status. Key principles established:

  • Genuine vs. sham distinction: "Voraussetzung fĂĽr die Anwendung dieser Grundsätze [...] ist [...] ein Unfall beim Kreuzungsräumen durch einen 'echten NachzĂĽgler', also einem Fahrzeug, welches zunächst bei GrĂĽnlicht in den — und soweit im Unterschied zu einem 'unechten NachzĂĽgler' — inneren Bereich der Kreuzung eingefahren ist, dort aufgehalten wurde und den Verkehrsfluss deshalb erheblich stören wĂĽrde" (Rn. 24).
  • Burden of proof: "Die Darlegungs- und Beweislast fĂĽr diese Voraussetzungen trifft denjenigen, der diese Grundsätze fĂĽr sich in Anspruch nehmen will" (Rn. 25 per LG Essen 5 O 6/21 citing this ruling).
  • Kreuzungsräumer must not trust blindly: "der NachzĂĽgler [...] darf [...] nicht blindlings darauf vertrauen, dass er vorgelassen wird [...], sondern hat den Kreuzungsbereich vorsichtig, unter sorgfältiger Beachtung des einsetzenden Gegen- oder Querverkehrs mit Vorrang zu verlassen" (Rn. 23).
  • Verweildauer duty: "Anforderungen an die Aufmerksamkeit des Kreuzungsräumers [erhöhen sich] mit seiner Verweildauer im Kreuzungsbereich" (Rn. 25, citing KG 12 U 319/01 and KG 12 U 194/08).
  • Duration of green matters: Citing OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16: "Je weiter der Farbwechsel auf GrĂĽn zurĂĽckliegt, umso mehr darf der bei GrĂĽn An- oder Durchfahrende auf freie Kreuzung [...] vertrauen" (Rn., citing OLG Hamm).

⚠️ Correction from v01: v01 claimed this ruling established: (a) "50/50 baseline when neither party communicates," and (b) "100% clearer liability when clearer made no attempt to check." These specific formulations are NOT found in the source. The ruling dismissed the claim for failure to prove genuine Nachzügler status. It does NOT establish a "50/50 baseline." The duty to verify before clearing is drawn from BGH VI ZR 11/70, not from a "communication" rule.

Published: NJW-RR 2019, 1433

Relevance to case: Neumann bears the burden of proving she was a genuine Nachzügler (entered the inner intersection area on green, was detained). If she cannot prove this, the Kreuzungsräumer doctrine does not apply in her favour.

7. KG Berlin, 24.01.2022, 3 Ws (B) 354/21 — Sham Kreuzungsräumer = Rotlichtverstoß [7] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: ptc-telematik.de article confirmed the facts and holding.

Verified holding: A driver crossed the stop line [Haltelinie] on green but was stopped approximately 4 metres before the traffic signal (between Haltelinie and Ampel) due to traffic. The signal changed to red while the driver waited. When traffic cleared, the driver proceeded through the intersection. The Amtsgericht found a Rotlichtverstoß (EUR 250 fine + 1 month driving ban). The Kammergericht confirmed: "Für einen Kraftfahrzeugführer [gilt] ab dem Zeitpunkt des Umschaltens der Lichtzeichenanlage auf Rot das Haltgebot vor der Kreuzung, auch wenn er zuvor bei Grün die vorgelagerte Haltlinie überfahren hat." The driver was not a privileged Kreuzungsräumer because crossing the Haltelinie and entering the intersection did not occur "nahtlos" (seamlessly). Only if the driver was already in the "geschützten Bereich" (protected area = the actual intersection) at the time of the phase change would Kreuzungsräumer status apply.

Relevance to case: Directly supports the argument that if Neumann was stopped at a secondary signal within the intersection before the actual crossing area and the signal showed red, she commits a fresh Rotlichtverstoß — her Kreuzungsräumer status is revoked.

8. OLG Köln, 23.02.2012, I-7 U 163/11 — Flying Start / Duration of Green [8] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — full-text references (openjur.de, NRWE Rechtsprechungsdatenbank NRW, verkehrslexikon.de), 4 citing decisions. Leitsatz: "Zur Haftung bei Kollision zwischen Kreuzungsräumer und Einfahren im fliegenden Start bei Grün."

Verified holding: The longer the green phase has been showing, the more the entering driver may trust the intersection is clear. A "flying start" immediately upon green raises the green driver's duty of care — they must check for Nachzügler. OLG Düsseldorf 1 U 116/92 cited for the principle that "derjenige, der Vorrang hat, auf sein Recht verzichten muss, wenn es die allgemeine Verkehrslage erfordert" (whoever has priority must yield if the general traffic situation requires it). A Kreuzungsräumer who has not yet reached the Kreuzungsraum must stop before it, even if they already passed the Haltelinie on green.

Published: NZV 2012, 276

Relevance to case: Supports Stiskalova: she stopped at red and waited for green (not a flying start), strengthening her trust in a clear intersection.

9. OLG Saarbrücken, 21.04.2023, 3 U 11/23 — Rotlichtverstoß Absorbs Betriebsgefahr [9] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: urteile.news — confirmed case number, date, court, and holding. Vorinstanz: LG Saarbrücken 5 O 62/21.

Verified holding: "Ein Rotlichtverstoß stellt ein grob fahrlässiges Verhalten dar und verdrängt daher regelmäßig die Betriebsgefahr und ein geringfügiges Verschulden des bei Grünlicht in den Kreuzungsbereich Einfahrenden." (A red-light violation constitutes grossly negligent behaviour and therefore regularly displaces the Betriebsgefahr and minor fault of the party entering the intersection on green.) The OLG reversed the LG's 25% contributory liability finding.

Also confirmed by: dejure.org cross-reference from BGH VI ZR 98/91 "Wird zitiert von" list (OLG SaarbrĂĽcken 3 U 11/23).

Relevance to case: If the centre signal showed red to Neumann, this ruling supports 100% Neumann liability with Stiskalova's Betriebsgefahr receding entirely.

10. OLG Saarbrücken, 20.09.2024, 3 U 28/24 — Green Driver's Caution with Obstructed Sight [10] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: ra-kotz.de — full case analysis confirmed. Also confirmed by dejure.org cross-reference from KG 22 U 176/17 and BGH VI ZR 264/75 "Wird zitiert von" lists.

Verified holding: Collision in Saarbrücken involving green-light driver and a vehicle crossing from a side street while a LKW was turning and obstructing sight. Haftungsverteilung: 2/3 Beklagte (the crossing vehicle), 1/3 Kläger (the green-light driver). Even a green-light driver must exercise particular caution when sight is obstructed. The green driver's failure to check for Nachzügler when the intersection was unübersichtlich (obscured) constituted a Sorgfaltsverstoß. The clearer's manoeuvre (crossing the intersection without checking for right-of-way traffic while sight was blocked) was more severely culpable.

Relevance to case: Potential risk factor for Stiskalova — could be argued she should have been more cautious with a visible vehicle present. However, her situation differs: she was on green for cross-traffic, not for the same direction as the obstructing vehicle.

11. OLG Brandenburg, 13.02.2025, 12 U 77/24 — Freshest Appellate Synthesis [11] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org — full-text references (Entscheidungsdatenbank Brandenburg, juris.de, rechtsportal.de), 1 citing decision already (LG Berlin II, 20.03.2025). Title: "Annahme der Haftung von 1/3 zu 2/3 bei der gebotenen Abwägung der Verursachungsbeiträge i.R.e. Verkehrsunfalls."

Verified holding: Applied the standard 1/3 (green-light driver) to 2/3 (Kreuzungsräumer) split. Comprehensive synthesis of the current state of Kreuzungsräumer doctrine, explicitly citing:

  • KG Berlin 22 U 176/17 (Rn. 24) — genuine vs. sham NachzĂĽgler definition
  • OLG Koblenz 12 U 1355/96 (Rn. 12) — NachzĂĽgler definition
  • OLG DĂĽsseldorf 1 U 185/96 — NachzĂĽgler must have reached Kreuzungskern
  • OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16 (Rn. 22) — enhanced duty with extended wait
  • BGH VI ZR 264/75 (Rn. 9-19) — foundational rule

Key formulation: genuine Nachzügler status requires "dass der Kreuzungskern (gebildet durch die Fluchtlinien der Fahrbahnränder) schon erreicht war" (that the intersection core, formed by the projected kerb-edge lines, had already been reached).

Published: NJW-RR 2025, 602; BeckRS 2025, 3176

Relevance to case: The freshest appellate synthesis. Confirms the 2/3-1/3 baseline while incorporating the genuine/sham distinction. An attorney should review this ruling as a priority.

Part B: Rulings Requiring Correction from v01 ​

12. OLG Nürnberg, 03.06.2024, 3 U 746/24 — LEFT-TURNER vs. RIGHT-TURNER Case (NOT Kreuzungsräumer) [12] ​

Status: ⚠️ CORRECTED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: anwaltverein.de (DAV Arbeitsgemeinschaft Verkehrsrecht, VerkR 34/24).

Verified holding: This is a § 9 StVO left-turner [Linksabbieger] vs. right-turner [Rechtsabbieger] case, NOT a Kreuzungsräumer case. The facts: plaintiff's wife turned left into a street while the defendant turned right from the opposite direction into the same street. Collision occurred. The LG decided 50:50 haftungsverteilung. The OLG confirmed: "Linksabbieger müssen an Kreuzungen warten, bis der entgegenkommende Verkehr, der nach rechts abbiegt, die Kreuzung passiert hat." The left-turner's duty to yield under § 9(4) StVO was confirmed. The left-turner does not gain priority merely by having begun the turn.

⚠️ Correction from v01: v01 described this as "Recent ruling addressing Kreuzungsräumer liability with emphasis on the duty of care when driving off after an extended wait. Consistent with OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16." This is entirely wrong. The ruling has nothing to do with Kreuzungsräumer doctrine. It is a standard § 9 StVO left-turner vs. right-turner priority case.

Tangential relevance: The ruling confirms § 9(4) StVO left-turner duties, which remain independently relevant to Neumann's conduct as a left-turner, though on different facts.

13. OLG Zweibrücken, 03.05.2021, 1 U 18/20 — Standard Kreuzungsräumer Case (NOT Green-Arrow) [13] ​

Status: ⚠️ CORRECTED | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org (https://dejure.org/2021,20464) — full-text references (Justiz Rheinland-Pfalz, openjur.de, rechtsportal.de, juris). Official title: "Haftungsverteilung nach Kreuzungsunfall: Kollision zwischen Grünlichtfahrer und Kreuzungsräumer."

Verified holding: This is a standard Kreuzungsräumer case — collision between a green-light driver and a Kreuzungsräumer. The ruling applies § 7 StVG, § 17 StVG, § 1(2) StVO, § 11(3) StVO. Key holdings:

  • NachzĂĽglern must be given the opportunity to clear: "um Stauungen zu vermeiden" (citing BGH VI ZR 264/75).
  • Green-light drivers need not generally expect unlawful cross-traffic (citing BGH VI ZR 11/70).
  • But the longer green has been showing, the more the entering driver may trust the intersection is clear (citing OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16 and OLG Köln 7 U 163/11).
  • The Kreuzungsräumer "hat den Kreuzungsbereich vorsichtig, unter Beachtung des einsetzenden Gegen- oder Querverkehrs zu verlassen."
  • The court distinguished its facts from OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16, noting that in OLG Hamm the Kreuzungsräumer waited "mindestens 23 Sekunden bei Rot" and the green-light driver had "mindestens 19 Sekunden GrĂĽnlicht" — different from the facts in this case.

The ruling was also cited by OLG Saarbrücken 3 U 28/24 for the principle that even a genuine Nachzügler must clear "nur vorsichtig und unter sorgfältiger Beachtung des einsetzenden Gegen- oder Querverkehrs."

⚠️ Correction from v01: v01 characterised this as "Addressed the interaction between green-arrow signals and the Vertrauensgrundsatz for left-turners. Only a green arrow allows a left-turner to fully trust that opposing traffic is stopped." This is entirely wrong. The ruling has no green-arrow component. It is a standard Kreuzungsräumer collision case applying §§ 1(2), 11(3) StVO.

Relevance to case: Confirms the standard framework and duty of care on both parties. The distinction from OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16 (shorter waiting time) is useful — in Stiskalova's case, if Neumann waited a substantial time, OLG Hamm applies more favourably.

14. OLG Hamm, 7 U 22/19 — UNABLE TO VERIFY [14] ​

Status: ❌ UNVERIFIED | Confidence: LOW

Source: No URL was provided in v01. Web search and dejure.org search found no ruling with the exact case number "7 U 22/19" at OLG Hamm. Nearby cases found: OLG Hamm 7 U 4/19 (29.10.2019), OLG Hamm I-7 U 19/19 (09.06.2020), OLG Hamm 7 U 99/22 (19.09.2023). None match.

⚠️ Note on v01 characterisation: v01 claimed this ruling concerned "Left-turner sole liability" and confirmed "the general principle that left-turners carry a heightened duty of care." This characterisation cannot be verified because the ruling itself cannot be located. The case number may be erroneous or may exist only in a juris subscription database not indexed by dejure.

Recommendation: Do not cite this ruling in any correspondence or court filing until it can be independently verified via juris or a full-text legal database. The legal principle it was cited for (left-turner heightened duty) is well-established through other verified rulings (§ 9(3) StVO; OLG Nürnberg 3 U 746/24 for § 9(4) StVO).

Part C: Rulings Verified via Cross-References ​

15. OLG Düsseldorf, 30.06.1997, 1 U 185/96 — Waiting Duty Outside Kreuzungskern [15] ​

Status: âś… VERIFIED (via cross-references) | Confidence: VERIFIED

Source: dejure.org (https://dejure.org/1997,15494) — full-text via juris (subscription); 4 citing decisions confirmed. Official title on dejure: "Wartepflicht des außerhalb des Kreuzungskerns haltenden Nachzüglers" (Waiting duty of a Nachzügler stopped outside the intersection core).

Verified holding (from cross-references):

  • Cited by OLG Brandenburg 12 U 77/24 as authority for the definition of genuine Kreuzungsräumer requiring the vehicle to have reached the "Kreuzungskern" (intersection core formed by Fluchtlinien der Fahrbahnränder).
  • Cited by OLG Hamm 6 U 13/16: a vehicle stopped outside the intersection core must be treated as an "unechter NachzĂĽgler" who "darf sich nicht auf ein Vorrecht als Kreuzungsräumer berufen" (may not invoke Kreuzungsräumer privilege).
  • Cited by OLG DĂĽsseldorf 1 U 153/22: "Er ist gegenĂĽber dem Querverkehr wartepflichtig, wenn damit zu rechnen ist, dass die Ampelanlage fĂĽr den Querverkehr zwischenzeitlich auf GrĂĽnlicht geschaltet hat" (must wait for cross-traffic if the signal for cross-traffic has likely switched to green).
  • Cited by AG Marl 23 C 92/01: "zum Kreuzungsbereich [zählt] nur die durch die Fluchtlinien der sich kreuzenden Fahrbahnen umgrenzte Fläche" (the intersection area comprises only the area bounded by the projected lines of the crossing roadways).

Published: NZV 1997, 481; VersR 1997, 1251

Relevance to case: Directly relevant to determining whether Neumann was a genuine Kreuzungsräumer. If she was stopped outside the Kreuzungskern (e.g., between the Haltelinie and the intersection core beneath the secondary signal), she would be an unechte Nachzüglerin without Kreuzungsräumer privilege.

Part D: New Case Law Search (2025–2026) ​

A systematic search for new Kreuzungsräumer, Rotlichtverstoß, and Nachzügler rulings from 2025-2026 was conducted via:

  • dejure.org cross-reference chains from § 11 StVO and § 37 StVO
  • Web search for "Kreuzungsräumer 2025," "NachzĂĽgler 2025 2026," and "RotlichtverstoĂź Kreuzung 2025"

Result ​

No significant new appellate rulings on Kreuzungsräumer doctrine beyond OLG Brandenburg 12 U 77/24 (February 2025) were found. This remains the freshest synthesis.

One tangentially relevant finding:

  • OLG Schleswig, 14.04.2025, 7 U 10/25: Addressed yellow-light duties. Confirmed that a driver stopped before the intersection area after a phase change (i.e., who did not enter the Kreuzungsbereich seamlessly) is NOT a privileged NachzĂĽgler and must wait. This is consistent with KG Berlin 3 Ws (B) 354/21 and the genuine/sham distinction. No full text available for independent verification.

Key Conclusions — Updated from v01 ​

  1. Kreuzungsräumer status is not automatic. The burden of proving genuine Kreuzungsräumer status lies with the party claiming it (KG Berlin 22 U 176/17, Rn. 25). Neumann must prove she reached the Kreuzungskern on green and was detained.

  2. An internal signal creates a fresh stopping obligation. If the centre signal showed red, Neumann's Kreuzungsräumer status is revoked (KG Berlin 3 Ws (B) 354/21). She would be committing a new Rotlichtverstoß.

  3. RotlichtverstoĂź absorbs Betriebsgefahr. If Neumann committed a RotlichtverstoĂź, Stiskalova's residual Betriebsgefahr recedes entirely (OLG SaarbrĂĽcken 3 U 11/23).

  4. Failure to look = potential 100% liability even with Kreuzungsräumer status. OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16 establishes that a Kreuzungsräumer who drives off without checking bears sole liability. The waiting duration was >20 seconds (not "40 seconds" as v01 claimed). Neumann's admission of "nicht nach rechts geschaut" fits squarely.

  5. Duration of green matters for the entering driver. The longer green has been showing, the more the entering driver may trust the intersection is clear (OLG Köln I-7 U 163/11; OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16; OLG Zweibrücken 1 U 18/20).

  6. The 2/3-1/3 baseline is the starting point, not the endpoint. Courts frequently deviate — to 100% clearer liability (OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16), 100% green driver (KG 12 U 43/02 for flying start), or 50/50 (various) — depending on individual circumstances.

Corrections to v01 Summary ​

#v01 Claimv02 FindingSeverity
1OLG Hamm 7 U 22/16: "approximately 40 seconds" waitingSource says ">20 Sekunden Rot"; OLG ZweibrĂĽcken says "mindestens 23 Sekunden bei Rot". "40 seconds" is not in any cited source.MODERATE
2KG Berlin 22 U 176/17: "50/50 baseline when neither communicates"Not found in ruling. The ruling dismissed the claim for failure to prove genuine NachzĂĽgler status.HIGH
3KG Berlin 22 U 176/17: "100% clearer if no attempt to verify"Not found as a standalone holding. The duty to verify comes from BGH VI ZR 11/70, not from a "communication" framework.HIGH
4OLG Nürnberg 3 U 746/24: described as Kreuzungsräumer caseIt is a § 9 StVO left-turner vs. right-turner case (50:50). Not a Kreuzungsräumer case.HIGH
5OLG Zweibrücken 1 U 18/20: described as green-arrow / Vertrauensgrundsatz caseIt is a standard Kreuzungsräumer collision case under §§ 1(2), 11(3) StVO. No green-arrow component.HIGH
6OLG Hamm 7 U 22/19: described as "VERIFIED" with holding on left-turner sole liabilityUNABLE TO VERIFY. No ruling with this case number found on dejure or via web search.HIGH
7KG Berlin 12 U 43/02: v1 cited as "12 U 43/03"Minor typo. Correct case number is 12 U 43/02.LOW
8BGH VI ZR 98/91: described as "Vertrauensgrundsatz at Green" generallyContext is specifically green-arrow [GrĂĽnpfeil], not general green light. Broader principle is sound but scope is narrower than stated.LOW

Verification Summary Table ​

#RulingDateStatusv01 StatusChangeConfidence
1BGH VI ZR 11/7011.05.1971âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
2BGH VI ZR 264/7509.11.1976âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
3BGH VI ZR 98/9103.12.1991âś… VERIFIED (context narrowed)âś… VERIFIEDClarification: green-arrow contextVERIFIED
4OLG DĂĽsseldorf 1 U 185/9630.06.1997âś… VERIFIED (cross-refs)âś… VERIFIEDURL added (dejure.org/1997,15494)VERIFIED
5KG Berlin 12 U 43/0213.11.2003âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
6OLG Köln I-7 U 163/1123.02.2012✅ VERIFIED✅ VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
7OLG Hamm 7 U 22/1626.08.2016âś… VERIFIED (holding corrected)âś… VERIFIEDWait time corrected: >20s, not ~40sVERIFIED
8KG Berlin 22 U 176/1713.06.2019âś… VERIFIED (holding corrected)âś… VERIFIEDRemoved fabricated "50/50 baseline" and "100% if no verify" claimsVERIFIED
9OLG Hamm 7 U 22/1914.11.2019?❌ UNVERIFIED✅ VERIFIEDDowngraded: cannot locate rulingLOW
10OLG Zweibrücken 1 U 18/2003.05.2021⚠️ CORRECTED✅ VERIFIEDCorrected: standard Kreuzungsräumer, NOT green-arrowVERIFIED
11KG Berlin 3 Ws (B) 354/2124.01.2022âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
12OLG SaarbrĂĽcken 3 U 11/2321.04.2023âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
13OLG Nürnberg 3 U 746/2403.06.2024⚠️ CORRECTED✅ VERIFIEDCorrected: § 9 StVO left-turner case, NOT KreuzungsräumerVERIFIED
14OLG SaarbrĂĽcken 3 U 28/2420.09.2024âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDNo changeVERIFIED
15OLG Brandenburg 12 U 77/2413.02.2025âś… VERIFIEDâś… VERIFIEDPublished: NJW-RR 2025, 602VERIFIED

Sources ​

  1. BGH, 11.05.1971, VI ZR 11/70 (BGHZ 56, 146) – dejure.org
  2. BGH, 09.11.1976, VI ZR 264/75 – dejure.org
  3. BGH, 03.12.1991, VI ZR 98/91 – dejure.org
  4. KG Berlin, 13.11.2003, 12 U 43/02 – dejure.org
  5. OLG Hamm, 26.08.2016, 7 U 22/16 – verkehrsrechtonline.de
  6. KG Berlin, 13.06.2019, 22 U 176/17 – dejure.org
  7. KG Berlin, 24.01.2022, 3 Ws (B) 354/21 – ptc-telematik.de
  8. OLG Köln, 23.02.2012, I-7 U 163/11 – dejure.org
  9. OLG Saarbrücken, 21.04.2023, 3 U 11/23 – urteile.news
  10. OLG Saarbrücken, 20.09.2024, 3 U 28/24 – ra-kotz.de
  11. OLG Brandenburg, 13.02.2025, 12 U 77/24 – dejure.org
  12. OLG Nürnberg, 03.06.2024, 3 U 746/24 – anwaltverein.de
  13. OLG Zweibrücken, 03.05.2021, 1 U 18/20 – dejure.org
  14. OLG Hamm, 7 U 22/19 – No URL found; UNVERIFIED
  15. OLG Düsseldorf, 30.06.1997, 1 U 185/96 – dejure.org