Connect the typical sequence with objective traces.
Organise the scene, damage, direction of movement and contemporaneous accounts. A typical sequence may assist the court but does not replace assessment of the actual facts.
Causation and proof: prima facie proof in an accident sequence
Prima facie proof after an accident: causation, typical sequences, evidence and limits under Austrian damages law.
Your contact
Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Rechtsanwalt
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte · Damages and civil law
Details decide a damages claim: cause, evidence, each head of loss and the applicable deadline. We put these levels into a clear order and represent your interests in negotiations and in court.
12 September 2026 · Mag. Bernhard Brandauer, Rechtsanwalt
Anyone assessing a damages claim after an accident usually has to separate two questions: what actually happened and whether that sequence caused the loss claimed. The answer often depends on traces, contemporaneous accounts and technical or medical plausibility.
Prima facie proof can assist where ordinary experience makes a sequence typical of a particular cause. It does not create an automatic claim or reverse every burden of proof. OGH principle RS0022664 recognises that a seriously plausible alternative cause or sequence may undermine the inference.
This article explains when a typical accident sequence matters for causation, which records support the inference and where its limits lie. The focus is Austrian damages law under sections 1295, 1297 and 1298 ABGB.
Assess your situation
What is hardest to prove about the accident sequence?
Classify whether the sequence is typical and documented, whether key evidence is missing or whether several causes may have contributed.
Which issue is central to the accident?
Separate the external sequence, the cause of the loss and possible alternative explanations.
Result
Your orientation
Collect the missing evidence systematically.
Preserve photographs, witness contacts, first medical findings and correspondence with insurers. Check inconsistencies against the time and opportunity for observation.
Separate the accident from other causes.
Prepare a chronology and allocate each head of loss to a possible cause. Technical or medical questions may require specialist assessment.
What causation and proof mean after an accident
Section 1295 ABGB generally requires an unlawfully and culpably caused loss. It is not enough that a loss was discovered after an event. The question is whether the conduct or accident caused the specific disadvantage. Causation connects the accident sequence with an injury, property damage or financial loss.
If several events occurred, their contributions must be separated. Section 1297 ABGB describes ordinary care. Section 1298 ABGB may ease proof of fault in certain contractual settings. Neither provision replaces a concrete reconstruction.
When a typical sequence supports prima facie proof
Prima facie proof may apply where established facts normally point to a particular cause or sequence according to ordinary experience. The starting facts must be reliable. The inference is not an independent legal basis for damages; it supports the court’s assessment of evidence.
Under RS0022664, a seriously plausible alternative cause or sequence may undermine the inference. The supporting facts must therefore be established first. A bare assumption about the accident is not enough.
Which evidence can reconstruct the accident
Photographs of the scene, damage patterns, skid marks, fragments, final positions and a contemporaneous police report can support reconstruction. Preserve each image with date, place and a short note. Witness evidence depends on perception, distance, visibility and when the statement was made.
For injuries, first medical findings, emergency records and the subsequent course are important. The medical connection must be plausible for the particular head of loss. A later recollection should not be treated as identical to an immediate observation without checking it.
How another sequence can undermine the inference
The inference becomes weaker if another sequence is seriously possible. A second collision mark, unclear visibility, different damage or a technical defect may provide concrete evidence. A theoretical possibility is not enough. The counterargument must rest on facts and genuinely challenge the ordinary inference.
Anyone alleging a different sequence should explain it in time and space. Conflicting positions, photographs and expert questions should be presented together.
How several possible causes are assessed
An accident may aggravate a prior condition or interact with another event. The entire loss may not be assessed as one undivided item. Separate repair, treatment, loss of earnings and loss of use. Section 1304 ABGB may matter where conduct contributed to the increase of loss.
See pain compensation and consequential loss and property damage and diminished value for related guidance.
Which documents prepare the evidentiary assessment
Preserve the accident report, police record, photographs, sketches, witness details, first medical findings, repair estimates and correspondence. Prepare a chronology and mark which points are documented and which depend on recollection.
The accident documentation checklist and damage documentation check help organise records.
Common mistakes when relying on prima facie proof
A common mistake is to equate time sequence with causation. The fact that an injury was found after the accident does not by itself show that the accident caused it. Another mistake is invoking a typical sequence without concrete starting facts.
Photographs, witnesses and findings must fit the alleged event. Separating heads of loss shows where the inference helps and where additional proof is needed.
Frequently asked questions
Prima facie proof after an accident
Does every accident create prima facie proof? +
No. The facts must establish a typical sequence. A mere assumption or temporal connection is not enough.
Can the other side undermine the inference? +
Yes. Under RS0022664, a seriously plausible alternative cause or sequence may undermine the inference.
Which evidence matters most? +
Contemporaneous photographs, witnesses, accident reports, traces, first medical findings and a coherent chronology are important.
What if there was prior damage or a prior condition? +
It does not automatically defeat a claim. The contribution of the accident to each head of loss must be assessed separately.
Is an expert report always necessary? +
No. It is particularly useful when technical or medical questions determine the sequence, cause or extent of loss.
Further reading
Further guidance on the damages portal
Evidence, negotiation and limitation
Prepare facts, records and timing questions.
Document an accident
Preserve important information and evidence promptly.
Damage documentation check
Separate events, records and heads of loss.
Pain compensation and consequential loss
Assess health consequences and further disadvantages.
Loss documented, claim unclear or a deadline open?
Send the key facts and documents. We will organise the claim, evidence, valuation and the next safe step.
Contact
A direct line to the firm.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000