Federal Court Questions Emergency Response in Child's Death

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has reopened a case concerning the tragic death of a child following a medical emergency, raising questions about the efficiency of emergency response services. The case stems from an incident in January 2017, when a pregnant woman in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern experienced severe complications and called for help. Unfortunately, delays in dispatching an emergency doctor led to a traumatic birth experience, resulting in the child suffering from severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation, and ultimately passing away a year later.

The parents of the deceased child have initiated legal proceedings against several counties and cities in Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, claiming that the emergency call centers failed to act promptly. They contend that crucial information was lost during communication between dispatchers, which hindered the timely arrival of medical assistance. The parents seek compensation for their loss, asserting that the emergency response system did not meet its obligations.

Initially, the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court ruled against the parents, stating that the circumstances of the emergency did not warrant immediate dispatch of an emergency physician. This ruling left the parents seeking justice feeling abandoned, as they expressed their belief that the system had failed them during their time of need.

However, in a recent development at the BGH in Karlsruhe, the parents successfully contested the OLG's dismissal. The BGH's presiding judge, Ulrich Herrmann, expressed concerns regarding the previous ruling and highlighted the absence of an expert opinion to support the decision. Consequently, the BGH overturned the OLG's judgment and remanded the case for a new hearing.

The plaintiffs have described their ongoing struggle with grief and disbelief over the loss of their child, reflecting on the profound emotional impact this incident has had on their lives. They emphasized that such a tragedy could happen to anyone and that the failings in the emergency response protocols must be addressed to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

As the case moves forward, the BGH has provided guidance to the OLG regarding potential liabilities. Should the OLG find evidence of dereliction of duty by the emergency services, they may need to evaluate whether these failures directly contributed to the child's health complications. If significant negligence is established, the burden of proof could shift to the defendants to demonstrate that their actions did not cause the harm.

This case highlights critical issues within emergency response systems and the legal ramifications of such failures, underscoring the importance of timely medical intervention during emergencies.