Last Update on state: 18.6.2026, reading time approx. 2 min 🇩🇪

BGH: Highway wobble the next day shifts burden to seller

A used scooter started dangerously oscillating at motorway speed the day after purchase, causing an accident. Germany’s Federal Court ruled: showing a suspicious symptom within six months is enough – the seller must prove it wasn’t a defect.

Wobble within six months: seller must disprove the defect

Scooter accident highway oscillation
Bild: KI, Prompt: Thomas Meier-Bading

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) ruled on 6 May 2026 that a buyer does not have to prove which defect caused a dangerous symptom – only that a suspicious symptom appeared within six months of purchase and that a defect is a plausible explanation (case ref. VIII ZR 257/23; appellate court: OLG Frankfurt am Main, ref. 10 U 34/22). Once that threshold is met, the seller must prove the problem was not their fault. In plain terms: if your newly bought vehicle behaves dangerously within the first six months, German consumer law gives you a significant legal leg-up.

Quick background for US readers: Germany has a statutory warranty system built into the Civil Code (BGB). Unlike US „lemon laws” – which typically apply only to new cars and require multiple failed repair attempts – German law covers used goods too and kicks in automatically. You don’t need a special contract clause for this protection.

Contact:

You can reach me by phone on regular business hours: +49-30/34060478, Whatsapp (text): +4916091067827 oder Email: helpline@meier-bading.de RA Meier-Bading has been working as a lawyer since more than 20 years.
He has 266 google-reviews
Rating: 5,0 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

What actually happened

A man bought a used motor scooter from a dealership for €2,990. The very next day he took it onto the motorway. At around 130 km/h the scooter began to oscillate violently. He slowed down, pulled onto the hard shoulder, lost control and crashed into the barrier. He was injured. A court-appointed expert later found severe wheel imbalance on the front wheel – far beyond any acceptable tolerance – and dangerously low tyre pressure on both wheels. Because it could not be determined with certainty whether those specific defects caused the crash (wind gusts, road surface, and rider movements were also considered), the lower courts dismissed his claims entirely.