Palatinate Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken, May 6, 1997, Case No.: 7 O 1150/93
Children are often victims of bullying at school, whether by fellow students or by teachers.
Many studies particularly highlight the significant disadvantage boys face at all school levels.
Bullying, whether by teachers or students, should be firmly opposed, as it is part of a teacher’s official duties to protect the general personal rights of students.
Bullying involves socially isolating a student, often accompanied by insults or threats. Rumors are frequently spread, and the affected students are deliberately kept away from important information. Additionally, mockery, extortion, threats, or violence may be involved.
The situation becomes particularly serious when a teacher violates their official duties. Such a teacher can face criminal and disciplinary consequences, as well as civil liability for damages.
According to Section 839(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), a public official is required to compensate for any damage caused to a third party by the intentional or negligent breach of official duty.
However, under Article 34 of the German Basic Law (GG), the state is initially liable to third parties instead of the official, provided that the official acted within the scope of their entrusted public office. This results in a shift of liability to the state (assumption of debt).
An official’s duty includes all personal behavioral obligations in the exercise of their office.
A teacher’s duty of care and supervision toward students goes beyond the general official duty of a public servant.
Because students are required to attend school, teachers are obliged to protect them during school hours from harm to health and property as well as from violations of other constitutionally protected rights (such as the right to personal dignity).
Teachers must neither commit nor tolerate any actions that infringe upon these rights.
A breach of a teacher’s official duty can occur either through the commission of an impermissible act or through the omission of a required action.
The above-mentioned ruling is an example of a bullying attack initiated by two female students against a male classmate, which was then perpetuated by the teacher.
Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff was a student in the third grade of primary school during the 1992/93 school year. The first defendant was his class teacher, and the second defendant was the federal state as the teacher’s employer.
The plaintiff was hyperactive and suffered from coordination disorders
The plaintiff was hyperactive and suffered, among other things, from a visual perception disorder and a coordination disorder.
Since 1990, he had been under continuous medical treatment, of which the defendant teacher was aware. Due to his condition, the plaintiff was frequently teased by his classmates.
In the fall of the 1992/93 school year, classmates brought a poster to school depicting a monkey. It was hung in the classroom.
Teacher compares student to a monkey and reads aloud a bullying letter
When the defendant teacher saw the poster, he asked the class if they wanted to name the picture after the plaintiff. The class agreed and responded with laughter.
In January 1993, the defendant read aloud to the class a letter from two female students that was clearly directed at the plaintiff, with the following content: “You are my favorite! You may be really dumb, but that’s why we love you! Because you’re only 2 mm tall?! Best wishes for your future love! Yours XXX”
As a result of the bullying, the plaintiff began bedwetting and had nightmares
From that day on, the plaintiff began bedwetting, crying at night, was fearful and restless, and talked in his sleep. Additionally, he had nightmares and was only willing to continue attending school under pressure from his parents.
Frankenthal Regional Court orders defendant to pay damages for pain and suffering
In the first instance, the Regional Court of Frankenthal (Palatinate) ruled, after taking evidence by questioning the pediatrician, that the defendant state was required to pay the plaintiff DM 1,600 in damages for pain and suffering, plus an additional DM 645.84 in compensation.
Ruling of the Palatinate Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken
The state appealed the decision.
The Palatinate Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court had rightly ordered the state to pay the plaintiff DM 1,600 in damages for pain and suffering and a further DM 645.84 in compensation.
The plaintiff had a claim for damages for pain and suffering and compensation under Article 34 GG in conjunction with Sections 839(1), 847 BGB.
Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken also finds a breach of duty by the teacher
The defendant teacher had negligently breached his official duty to the plaintiff by reading aloud to the class a letter that mocked the plaintiff.
Every official acting in a sovereign capacity is required to refrain from any interference with the rights of others that constitutes an unlawful act within the meaning of civil law, including Section 823(1) BGB.
An official who commits an unlawful act in the exercise of their public office simultaneously breaches their official duty to the holder of the right or legal interest.
The general right of personality is one of the other rights protected under Section 823(1) BGB (consistent case law of the Federal Court of Justice: see BGHZ 69, 128, 138; BGH NJW 1981, 675, 676 and BGH NJW 1994, 1950, 1951).
Teacher’s duty of care and supervision towards the student was breached
A teacher’s duty of care and supervision towards students goes beyond the general official duty of a public servant.
Because students are required to attend school, teachers are obliged during school hours to protect them from harm to health and property and from violations of other constitutionally protected rights.
They must neither commit nor tolerate any actions that infringe upon these rights.
The teacher must therefore not contribute to the violation of a student’s personal rights by allowing defamatory statements directed against an individual student to be disseminated.
This official duty serves to protect the fundamental rights of the students, as they are in the care of the school during school hours. It exists specifically for the benefit of the students.
Source: Source: Palatinate Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to contact us at 0221 – 80187670 or send us an email at If you require legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or send us an email at If you need employment law advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or send an email to info@mth-partner.de.. info@mth-partner.de.