In a recent court hearing at the Rottweil Regional Court, a man in his mid-50s aimed to claim 150,000 euros from Biontech, blaming their COVID-19 vaccine for his alleged near-total blindness in his right eye. However, the court rejected the man's case, considering his arguments insufficient.
The man struggled to provide convincing evidence, frequently relying on unfounded reports, internet opinions, and non-scientific medical opinions, rather than presenting actual errors in the vaccine approval process or undeniable scientific findings. The court pointed out that the vaccine manufacturer's instructions, warning about potential unknown side effects following approval, were sufficient.
This case is just one of many similar legal disputes in Germany, with courts evaluating various claims against vaccine manufacturers. According to German law, manufacturers are accountable for side effects that surpass scientifically acceptable levels with intended usage or if damage is a result of misleading warnings or instructions. The court determined that the man failed to justify his claims under these two categories.
In the intricate world of product liability law in Germany, the man's case against Biontech would usually fit under the Product Liability Directive (PLD), which imposes strict liability on manufacturers, and the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), incorporating a regulatory compliance defense based on European marketing approval. Future amendments in the ZPO will enhance trade secret protection and simplify mass actions through the introduction of a "leading decision procedure."
To clarify, this article does not offer specifics regarding the Rottweil Regional Court's verdict or the intricacies of the man's case against Biontech. Instead, it illustrates the broader legal landscape, setting the stage for potential legal proceedings involving vaccine-related claims in Germany.
When it comes to proving vaccine-related side effects in product liability law cases in Germany, specific requirements emerge. While details on the man's suit against Biontech are not available in available sources, we can deduce the standard criteria from the broader context of product liability law in Germany.
- Causality: The plaintiff must establish a solid connection between the vaccine and the alleged side effects, proof that the vaccine directly caused the injury or condition in question.
- Pre-existing Conditions: The plaintiff must disclose any pre-existing medical conditions that could have influenced the alleged side effects, differentiating between vaccine-induced injuries and those unrelated to vaccination.
- Vaccine Administration: The plaintiff must provide evidence of vaccine administration, like vaccination records and medical history.
- Expert Testimony: Expert medical testimony is usually required to establish a link between the vaccine and the alleged side effects, involving opinions from medical professionals capable of assessing the likelihood of causation based on existing data and medical literature.
- Statute of Limitations: The plaintiff must file the lawsuit within the statute of limitations period, which varies by jurisdiction and ranges from 2 to 10 years, depending on specific case details.
- Documentation and Records: Diligent documentation of medical records, including test results, hospital stays, and treatments, is essential to build a strong case, providing a clear timeline of events and reinforcing the causal link between the vaccine and the alleged side effects.
- Regulatory Compliance: The plaintiff must demonstrate that the vaccine manufacturer adhered to regulatory requirements, such as those set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). Non-compliance could serve as a defense by the manufacturer.
- Scientific Evidence: The plaintiff must present scientific evidence, including peer-reviewed studies, clinical trial data, and relevant scientific research, supporting a plausible link between the vaccine and the alleged side effects.
These criteria, while general, can vary based on type of case. The man's case against Biontech would need to satisfy these requirements to succeed in a German court.
