Definition of the Term: Tagesbruch
The term Tagesbruch originates from the field of mining and refers to the sudden collapse of the earth’s surface as a result of underground cavities created by the extraction of natural resources such as coal, salt, or ore. In a legal context, Tagesbruch describes a serious damaging event that can affect property, infrastructure, and public safety. Tagesbrüche are considered a source of danger and represent a significant area of law, especially in fields such as mining law, liability law, insurance law, and in connection with measures for public hazard prevention.
Legal Classification of Tagesbruch
Mining Law Context
In connection with Tagesbrüche, the Federal Mining Act (BBergG) is decisive. The Act regulates, among other things, the duties of mine operators to prevent hazards. Operators are obliged, after mining operations have concluded, to take all necessary measures for the permanent securing and reusability of the surface (§ 55, § 56 BBergG). This particularly includes filling underground cavities to avoid Tagesbrüche.
If such measures are not taken, this can under certain circumstances constitute a violation of public-law safety obligations. In special cases, police and regulatory law of the federal states can also be invoked to avert dangers to public safety.
Aspects of Liability Law
Obligations to Pay Damages
If a Tagesbruch leads to personal injury, property damage, or financial losses, civil liability generally arises. The responsibility can be based on § 823 BGB (tort/delict), where there is a breach of a duty to maintain safety. The particular danger of mining sites results in a high standard of duty for care imposed on owners and mine operators.
Depending on the nature and timing of the mining intervention, strict liability according to § 114 BBergG may also apply. This provision stipulates that the mining company is liable for damages caused by its operations, regardless of fault.
Liability by Virtue of Ownership
Pursuant to § 836 BGB (“Liability of the property owner for the collapse of a building or structure”), the owner of a property can also be liable for damages if his or her building or facility causes a Tagesbruch, provided that necessary maintenance was neglected.
Public Hazard Prevention
Responsibilities and Measures
Responsibility for hazard prevention in the event of Tagesbrüche rests with the local regulatory authorities under state law and, in specific cases, with the state mining offices. If there is an immediate danger to life or significant property, authorities may order immediate actions such as evacuating buildings, closing roads, or carrying out safety works.
Reimbursement of Costs and Piercing of the Corporate Veil Liability
The costs for official hazard prevention measures can, according to the polluter-pays principle (§ 6, § 7 state regulatory authority laws), be imposed on the responsible mine operator. If no such party can be identified or is not financially viable, the state or municipality can, under certain circumstances, make advance payments. In individual cases, liability may extend to the legal successor of the business.
Questions of Insurance Law Regarding Tagesbruch
Building Insurance
Building and natural hazard insurances sometimes standardly exclude or limit coverage for Tagesbruch incidents, or only provide coverage via special add-ons. Definitions, conditions of coverage, and duties in the event of loss vary depending on the insurance contract. In certain cases, it is possible to explicitly include damage caused by Tagesbruch as an insurable natural hazard.
Government Compensation for Losses
If the person responsible for the damage cannot be identified and there is no liable insurer, government compensation provisions may apply under state law for losses caused by mining activities.
Public and Private Interests
Protection of Property and Neighboring Interests
Owners of neighboring properties and adjacent land are especially affected by Tagesbrüche, as both the substance of their properties and existing usage rights (e.g., easements) may be impaired. The protection of property rights holds constitutional significance under Article 14 of the Basic Law (GG) and must always be balanced with the public interest in protecting the general public from Tagesbruch hazards.
Recourse to Former Operators
Particularly with historic or decommissioned mines, where a specific responsible party is difficult to identify, problems commonly arise in practice concerning recourse to predecessor operators. It is crucial whether safeguarding measures were implemented as part of mining aftercare and whether the relevant records are documented in the mine register or with the mining authorities.
Requirements for Preventive Measures and Reporting Duties
Hazard Analysis and Monitoring
Operators of current mining operations are required to carry out regular geotechnical monitoring and hazard analyses. Failure to comply with accepted standards of technology constitutes a breach of duty, with corresponding legal liability consequences.
Reporting Obligations in the Event of Damage
In the event of a loss, most federal states require notification to the competent authorities. Reporting a Tagesbruch event serves for rapid hazard prevention and evidence preservation for liability and insurance purposes.
Summary and Legal Assessment
Tagesbruch constitutes a complex legal issue with far-reaching consequences for mining operators, property owners, neighbors, insurers, and public authorities. The relevant legal framework is comprised of provisions from mining law, civil law, regulatory law, and insurance law. Preventive safety measures, careful corporate structuring, and appropriate insurance practices are vital for managing legal risks.
In particular, questions of responsibility, liability, and cost allocation in the event of a Tagesbruch depend on careful assessment of all individual circumstances. Decisive are whether responsibilities can be clearly assigned and whether preventive safety measures have been correctly implemented. In the event of disputes, documentation under the BBergG and, if applicable, state registers are essential for legal enforcement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who bears legal responsibility in the event of a Tagesbruch on private property?
In principle, the duty to secure a private property lies with the respective owner. If a Tagesbruch is not detected or remedied in time and this leads to injury or damage to third-party property, the property owner can be held liable for damages under § 823 BGB (German Civil Code). Liability also extends to possible claims for injunctive relief and damages. Accordingly, the owner is required to carry out regular inspections and, if necessary, seek expert advice to identify and eliminate sources of danger resulting from underground cavities or old tunnels in good time. Exceptions may arise if the Tagesbruch is due to the actions of third parties, such as construction work on neighboring properties.
What are the reporting obligations to authorities in the event of a Tagesbruch?
In the event of a (threatened) Tagesbruch, state law regularly requires notification or reporting to the local regulatory authorities or mining office, particularly where the Tagesbruch concerns former mining activities. The property owner or user is required to inform the relevant authorities immediately so that appropriate securing and hazard prevention measures can be taken. This obligation applies regardless of whether damage has already occurred or if the Tagesbruch has only just been discovered. Failure to comply may result in a fine under the respective state laws.
Who is liable for damage when a Tagesbruch is caused by former mining activity?
Under German law, liability for mining damage is governed by § 114 of the Federal Mining Act (BBergG). Accordingly, the holder of a mining license is fundamentally liable, irrespective of fault, for damage caused by mining activities. If the operator no longer exists (e.g., due to closure or liquidation), it must be examined on a case-by-case basis whether a legal successor or the state can be considered as possibly responsible. In certain cases, the competent mining authority may undertake safety measures on a public law basis, although generally there is no claim for compensation against the state.
What is the role of the duty to maintain safety (Verkehrssicherungspflicht) in relation to Tagesbrüche?
According to consistent case law, every property owner is subject to the so-called duty to maintain safety (Verkehrssicherungspflicht). This duty also includes identifying and remedying potential hazards such as Tagesbrüche. Liability arises when the owner fails to exercise the necessary care, for example by omitting warning signs, barriers, or immediate safety measures. The standard of care required can vary in intensity depending on the location and area involved (e.g., inner-city property versus remote forest land).
Can building insurance cover damage caused by a Tagesbruch?
Whether a building insurance policy covers damage caused by a Tagesbruch depends on the specific terms and conditions. Especially in areas of former mining, there are often explicit exclusion clauses for so-called mining damage or Tagesbrüche. Generally, special natural hazard insurance or mining damage insurance is necessary for such coverage, which must explicitly include Tagesbrüche as a damaging event. In case of loss, immediate notification and assessment by an expert is recommended.
What legal claims do neighbors have for damage caused by a Tagesbruch?
If neighbors suffer damage due to a Tagesbruch, such as to buildings, land, or use, they may assert civil claims, particularly for damages (§ 823 BGB) or for injunctive relief against unlawful interference (§ 1004 BGB). This generally requires fault or a breach of the duty to maintain safety on the part of the property owner. In special cases—such as damage caused by previously unknown mining activities without current users—the legal situation is more difficult, as there may be no party liable for the damage.
What legal consequences can arise from failure to secure a Tagesbruch?
If a Tagesbruch becomes known but no securing action is taken, not only civil law claims for damages and injunctive relief may occur, but also administrative measures by regulatory authorities up to and including enforcement actions (e.g., substitution on the owner’s account) under state law for hazard prevention. If personal injury results from the lack of security measures, criminal consequences are also possible, e.g., negligent bodily injury under § 229 StGB or—in extreme cases—negligent manslaughter (§ 222 StGB).
