Schadensersatz bei Tötung

Julien Schickling

doi:10.1628/978-3-16-200630-1

Table of Contents to follow
Print

Julien Schickling

Schadensersatz bei Tötung

Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zum deutschen und japanischen Deliktsrecht

[Damages for Wrongful Death. A Comparative Study of German and Japanese Tort Law.]

2026. 330 pages.

forthcoming in July 2026

Schriften zum Ostasiatischen Privatrecht (OstAPrivR) 13

DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-200630-1

eBook PDF
Open Access
CC BY-SA 4.0
978-3-16-200630-1

Also Available As:

cloth

Summary

Authors/Editors

Reviews

Awards

Summary

Under German law, surviving dependants receive comparatively low compensation in cases of wrongful death, which is often criticized as »killing at no cost.« Julien Schickling demonstrates that Japanese law can provide important impulses for further development, particularly with regard to dispute resolution practice.

For years, tort liability for damages in cases of wrongful death has been debated in German law. Although the legislature introduced bereavement damages in 2017 (§ 844(3) BGB), the restrictive approach is still considered unsatisfactory. In cases involving the death of a child, only a modest bereavement award is granted. This is criticized as »killing at no cost.« Japanese law takes a different approach: heirs may claim both the deceased's loss of earnings and damages for pain and suffering for the violation of life. This so-called »inheritance theory« results in significantly higher compensation and has so far received little attention in German literature. On the basis of a functional comparative analysis, Julien Schickling demonstrates that Japanese law provides important impulses for the further development of German law. He also examines a possible extension of liability from a law-and-economics perspective, particularly with regard to the incentive effects of liability rules. Finally, from a socio-legal perspective, he analyzes how disputes arising from fatal traffic accidents, which are highly relevant in practice, are resolved. For this purpose, he conducted numerous expert interviews in Japan with those involved in dispute resolution. Japanese law could serve as a model in this area as well. Greater standardization of damage awards, expanded use of alternative dispute resolution, and increased specialization of decision-makers could contribute to faster, more consistent, and more cost-effective out-of-court settlements for the benefit of surviving dependants.

Table of contents:

§ 1 Einleitung
A. Gegenstand der Untersuchung
B. Methode der Untersuchung
C. Ziele und Gang der Untersuchung
D. Darstellung japanischer Begriffe
§ 2 Deutsches Recht
A. Historische Entwicklung und Grundlagen des Deliktsrechts
B. Deliktisches Haftungskonzept bei Tötungen
C. Einzelne Schadenspositionen bei Tötungen
D. Streitbeilegung bei tödlichen Verkehrsunfällen
§ 3 Japanisches Recht
A. Historische Entwicklung und Grundlagen des Deliktsrechts
B. Deliktisches Haftungskonzept bei Tötungen
C. Einzelne Schadenspositionen bei Tötungen
D. Streitbeilegung bei tödlichen Verkehrsunfällen
§ 4 Rechtsvergleich
A. Vergleich der Rechtsordnungen
B. Bewertung der Unterschiede
§ 5 Vorschlag zur Fortentwicklung des deutschen Rechts
A. Wahlrecht beim Ersatz des Unterhaltsschadens
B. Unterhaltsschaden bei faktischer Unterhaltsgewährung
C. Ersatz für den Einkommensverlust des Getöteten
D. Schmerzensgeld wegen Verletzung des Lebens
E. Fazit
§ 6 Abschließende und zusammenfassende Thesen