Violation of rules of experience – Definition and meaning
The term “violation of rules of experience” originates from legal science and refers to the disregard of generally recognized rules of experience within the application of law, especially in civil and criminal proceedings. Rules of experience are universally valid rules derived from life and factual experience that enable the court to make certain facts appear more or less probable. A violation of these rules can lead to the legal invalidity of a judgment, particularly during the assessment of evidence.
Fundamentals of rules of experience
Definition and distinction
Rules of experience represent generalized conclusions drawn from repeated occurrences in social, technical, or economic practice. Their function is to provide the court with general experiential knowledge, allowing it to draw conclusions relevant to individual cases.
In contrast to legal norms, rules of experience are not codified laws, but are unwritten assumptions about typical processes and connections, developed over many years of practical life experience.
Types of rules of experience
A distinction can be made between scientific-empirical and general life-science rules of experience:
- Empirical rules of experience: Derived from scientific, technical, or medical findings (e.g., specific reaction behavior of chemical substances).
- Rules of experience based on everyday life: Based on everyday experience, such as human behavior in certain situations.
Rules of experience in civil and criminal proceedings
Significance for evidentiary law
In civil and criminal proceedings, rules of experience play a significant role in the court’s free evaluation of evidence (§ 286 ZPO, § 261 StPO). They help assess the credibility of witness statements, the plausibility of factual circumstances, or the probability of certain events.
Typical applications
- Assessment of witness testimony
- Evaluation of the likelihood of damage events
- Assessment of technical expert reports
- Evaluation of parts of a confession as credible
Violation of rules of experience – Legal consequences
Incorrect evaluation of evidence
A violation of rules of experience occurs if the court, in its evaluation of evidence, makes assumptions that contradict common experiential knowledge. Such a violation can constitute an error in the findings of fact and result in the unlawfulness of the decision.
Example:
The court assesses the credibility of a witness statement despite scientific proof that memory distortions occur in a certain stress situation—here, a violation of scientific-psychological rules of experience could be present.
Relevance in appellate review
A violation of rules of experience is particularly significant in appellate proceedings. According to established supreme court practice (cf. BGH, BVerfG), the consideration or disregard of general rules of experience is part of the review of the factual judge’s conviction.
A judgment can be overturned if the court
- either disregards a generally recognized rule of experience,
- ascribes it an incorrect content, or
- applies an alleged rule of experience that actually contradicts common experience.
Binding nature and review
The determination of whether a particular rule of experience has been violated is subject to appellate review. The higher court examines whether prevailing general life experience was applied incorrectly.
Typical areas of controversy and distinctions
Rule of experience vs. judicial conviction
Not every divergent assessment of facts constitutes a violation of rules of experience. The principle of the judge’s free evaluation generally remains unaffected unless it conflicts with generally recognized experiential principles.
Difference from rules on evidence
Rules of experience are not strict rules of evidence, but provide a framework for judicial conviction. They are not exclusive but supplementary, and must be applied in the context of the individual case.
Examples of rules of experience in case law
Generally recognized rules of experience
- A person generally remembers extraordinary, emotional events better than everyday occurrences.
- An injured party is not usually inclined to allege an unfounded defect where there is no indication of a motive.
- Anyone who fails to recognize a car’s headlights in the dark is generally acting negligently.
Conclusion and summary
Observing rules of experience is essential for proper judicial decision-making. A violation of generally accepted rules of experience constitutes a legally significant defect on appeal and can lead to the reversal and remand of judicial decisions. For this reason, recognition and correct application of these rules are continuously examined and specified by the courts.
Literature and further legal provisions
- § 286 ZPO (free evaluation of evidence)
- § 261 StPO (free evaluation of evidence)
- Case law of the BGH, particularly in civil matters (BGHZ, NJW)
- Case law of the BVerfG regarding judicial conviction and error justification
Note: This article provides a comprehensive overview of the significance, application, and legal consequences of a violation of rules of experience in the German legal system. For specific cases, it is essential to consider the relevant case law and literature.
Frequently asked questions
What are the legal consequences of violating rules of experience in the evaluation of evidence in civil proceedings?
A violation of generally recognized rules of experience in the assessment of evidence may result in incorrect findings of fact in civil proceedings. Rules of experience reflect generally accepted probabilities of life recognized by law, which the court must consider when evaluating the disputed facts (§ 286 ZPO). If such a rule of experience is disregarded in the assessment of evidence, this may constitute a procedural error that can be challenged on appeal or through a procedural complaint. The higher court then examines whether the fact-finding judge clearly violated a generally recognized rule of experience and whether this was causal for the deviating decision. In addition to the reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial, the higher instance may in some cases make its own decision, provided the facts can be clearly determined.
When does the appellate court recognize a violation of rules of experience?
An appellate court, in particular, recognizes a violation of a rule of experience if the decision at first instance either completely ignores a relevant general rule of experience or bases its findings on a wholly contrary assumption without providing a plausible justification. The rule must be one that is acknowledged in case law and scholarship, and above all, is confirmed by empirical or general life experience. The appellate court does not determine its own conviction; it only reviews whether the original court has unreasonably disregarded or inappropriately applied a rule of experience.
What role do rules of experience play in criminal proceedings, and how are violations addressed?
In criminal proceedings, rules of experience serve to support the judge’s formation of conviction and must be considered during the free evaluation of evidence under § 261 StPO. Violating a recognized rule of experience may render the evidentiary outcome unsustainable. On appeal, pursuant to § 337 StPO, the court examines whether the judgment is based on such a violation. If the assessment of evidence is found to be arbitrary, incomplete, or contradictory due to the disregard of a rule of experience, this constitutes a reversible error of law that can lead to the annulment of the judgment.
How must the court document its discussion of rules of experience in its judgment?
Courts must explain in their reasoning whether and which rules of experience formed the basis for their evaluation of evidence, especially when the parties refer to a particular rule of experience during proceedings or when they diverge from universally recognized life experience. Failure to do so can be challenged as a deficiency in the reasoning under §§ 313 para. 3, 547 no. 6 ZPO or § 267 StPO. The appellate review process may examine whether the court properly considered and assessed existing rules of experience.
What typical errors can courts make in connection with rules of experience?
Common errors include completely overlooking a relevant rule of experience, applying a rule without reflecting on its suitability for the specific case, confusing personal, subjective expectations with general life experience, and assuming a rule that either does not exist or is not recognized. These mistakes can lead to unlawful evaluation of evidence and reversal of the decision.
Can parties challenge a violation of rules of experience during ongoing proceedings?
Yes, parties can already point out the improper application or disregard of rules of experience during ongoing proceedings and influence the judicial evaluation through submissions and evidentiary motions. However, an explicit objection only becomes mandatory in appellate proceedings if the judgment is based on such a violation. The procedural possibility to assert a violation depends on the respective rules of procedure.
In which areas is the significance of rules of experience particularly relevant?
Rules of experience are especially relevant in matters concerning typical human behavior, technical processes, or medical causalities—such as in traffic law, labor law, medical liability law, and criminal law. In these fields, recognized rules of experience often replace or supplement complex expert opinions and facilitate judicial conviction. Careful consideration and application of such rules are decisive for the substantive correctness of judicial decisions.
