Austrian damages law: how an acknowledgement may interrupt limitation, what must be checked afterwards and how contributory fault is assessed separately.
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.
An acknowledgement can matter for limitation in an Austrian damages claim. Section 1497 ABGB refers, alongside a properly continued action, to an express or implied acknowledgement of the other person’s right. The key is the wording of the statement and its connection with the claim.
Section 1489 ABGB generally links limitation to knowledge of the damage and the person who caused it. An acknowledgement may interrupt limitation. First establish that a legally relevant acknowledgement exists and identify the claim it covers.
The other side may also rely on contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB. Whether a statement affects limitation and whether the injured person contributed to the occurrence or increase of loss are separate steps. This article keeps them apart.
Separate knowledge dates, acknowledgement, payments and your own conduct. This helps identify whether a statement affects the claim and what role contributory fault plays.
For limitation, the wording, date and context of a statement matter. A conversation is not automatically an acknowledgement.
Keep the letter, payment records and earlier correspondence. Identify which claim was expressly or implicitly addressed and whether the statement concerns liability, amount or a defined head of loss.
Prepare a timeline of knowledge, acknowledgement, payments, negotiations and court steps. Check which heads of loss the statement actually covered and which remained open.
Record the conduct alleged and the head of loss it supposedly caused or increased. Contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB and acknowledgement under section 1497 ABGB require different facts.
Section 1497 ABGB refers to an express or implied acknowledgement of the other person’s right. A clear letter may therefore be treated differently from a non-binding conversation. A payment can be important evidence without automatically acknowledging every possible head of loss.
Check the wording, purpose and scope of the statement. Does it concern liability in principle, a particular invoice, a defined period or a partial payment? A statement about one head of loss does not necessarily acknowledge every later consequence.
Keep letters, emails, conversation notes, payment records and statements with their original dates. The guidance on evidence, negotiation and limitation helps arrange statements and limitation dates chronologically.
An express acknowledgement clearly identifies the claim or payment obligation. An implied acknowledgement must follow from conduct and circumstances in a way that accepts the other person’s right. Courtesy, a request for more documents or an internal review does not automatically have that effect.
The legal meaning depends on the full context. An insurer may offer an amount for a particular head of loss. The word “payment” alone does not show whether liability, settlement or no binding statement was intended.
Record who made the statement, what it addressed and whether conditions or reservations were included. The claim check helps organise the parties, legal basis and heads of loss.
A valid interruption does not protect every possible claim forever. The date and scope of the acknowledgement and the specific legal basis still need to be established. The later period should not be calculated merely from the date of the last telephone call.
A part-payment or statement about one head of loss may leave other claims open, including treatment costs, loss of earnings, property damage or later consequential loss. For each head, ask whether it was covered.
Prepare a table with the head of loss, original knowledge, statement, payment, reservation and later step. The limitation check helps with an initial chronology, but not the final legal assessment.
A payment may indicate acknowledgement, but it may also be made as goodwill, to avoid costs or as part of a settlement. A settlement can resolve claims without every statement operating as an acknowledgement for other claims. Wording, purpose and scope remain decisive.
Pay attention to terms such as “without prejudice”, “full and final settlement” or “without admission”. They may change the evidential meaning. A part-payment should not be treated as final settlement without checking the documents.
Keep the complete exchange and separate the settlement result, payment and open heads of loss. The damage documents checklist supports complete collection.
Section 1304 ABGB concerns the injured person’s contribution to the occurrence or increase of loss. Section 1497 ABGB concerns interruption of limitation by acknowledgement. An acknowledgement may matter for time limits without excluding every contributory-fault argument.
The other side may acknowledge liability in principle and still say that particular costs could have been avoided. Examine the statement and the alleged contribution separately for each head of loss.
A late medical visit, failure to mitigate or failure to preserve evidence may concern the amount or proof of one head. Document what was known and reasonably possible at the time.
Section 1489 ABGB generally provides a three-year period from knowledge of the damage and the person who caused it. The event date alone does not answer the question. Later correspondence does not automatically shift the start if it has no legally relevant effect.
For an acknowledgement, examine original knowledge together with the later statement. Record when damage and responsibility were known, when the other side responded and which heads were specific.
Knowledge may differ for developing injury or later property consequences. The guidance on pain compensation and consequential loss helps separate development, head and date.
A frequent error is treating every concession as acknowledgement of the entire claim. The opposite assumption, that a part-payment is irrelevant, is also unsafe. Examine wording and context.
Limitation calendars are often based only on the accident date. Under section 1489 ABGB you need knowledge dates; after a possible interruption record the statement, scope and later course.
Finally, contributory fault is often mixed with limitation. An allegation about mitigation does not show whether a statement interrupted limitation. Three separate lists create a sound basis.
Practical core: First check the wording and scope of a statement. Then assess the limitation period for each head of loss and only afterwards any contributory fault under section 1304 ABGB.
Arrange statements, knowledge dates and procedural steps.
Record event, knowledge, acknowledgement and later steps.
Collect payments, letters, medical records and accounts systematically.
Allocate later consequences and their development over time.
Send the key facts and documents. We will organise the claim, evidence, valuation and the next safe step.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000