Facts
The plaintiff, A., suffered serious injuries as the driver of a passenger car in a single-vehicle accident on April 5, 1994 and has been paraplegic ever since. He sued the insurance company X., as the liability insurer of Y. AG, which was the owner of the accident vehicle, for damages. The cantonal instances dismissed the claim, as the plaintiff was to be qualified as the holder of the accident vehicle at the time of the accident. The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
Considerations
According to established case law, the holder within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act (SVG) is not the owner of the vehicle or the person formally registered in the vehicle registration, but the person at whose own risk and expense the operation of the vehicle takes place and who at the same time has the actual, direct control over the vehicle and, if applicable, the persons required for its operation.
The Federal Court upholds this definition of the term "holder" and rejects the "operational responsibility" advocated by the plaintiff. The decisive factor is the direct use and free disposal of the vehicle. If an employer provides an employee with a company car and covers all or most of the costs, the employee becomes the holder if he can use the vehicle essentially freely.
In the present case, the lower court correctly qualified the plaintiff as the holder of the accident vehicle. The plaintiff was a member of the board of directors,…