Definition and Legal Classification of Voluntary Self-Endangerment
Voluntary self-endangerment is a term from German criminal and tort law. It describes scenarios in which an individual knowingly and willingly exposes themselves to a danger to their body or life, and external influence in the legal sense is absent or recedes. Voluntary self-endangerment is of central importance, especially for the criminal evaluation of third-party actions, and also plays a significant role in civil law, for example when considering liability for damages.
Distinguishing from Endangerment by Others
The distinction between self-endangerment and endangerment by others is of significant importance. While endangerment by others occurs when a person suffers danger through the actions of another, self-endangerment exists when the individual independently and autonomously decides to expose themselves to the risk. In practice, distinguishing between these can sometimes be difficult. The crucial criterion is who has ‘control over the situation,’ i.e., who holds dominion over the exposure to danger.
Criminal Law Relevance of Voluntary Self-Endangerment
Criminal Offenses Against Bodily Integrity and Life
In German criminal law, voluntary self-endangerment is of central relevance in offenses such as bodily harm (§ 223 et seq. StGB) and homicide (§ 211 et seq. StGB). In cases where the injury or death of a person is due to their own autonomous decision, criminal liability of a third party is generally excluded (see the principle of personal responsibility).
If a third party participates—for example, by providing a dangerous tool or inciting a risky act—it must be examined whether the third party has committed a criminal act, or whether the victim’s personal responsibility excludes ascribing liability. According to the so-called Doctrine of Personal Responsibility Criminal liability of the third party is excluded if the victim knowingly and autonomously accepts the risk.
Control Over the Act and External Manipulation
Subjects of lively discussion are particularly cases where outsiders play a role in self-endangerment but do not exercise their own control over the act (e.g., involvement in Russian roulette, drug use in the presence of others). A key requirement for the assumption of voluntary self-endangerment is that the endangered participant has essential decision-making authority over their actions and the associated risks. If instead a third party takes the leading role, this constitutes endangerment by others with potential criminal liability.
Limits of Personal Responsibility
The assumption of voluntary self-endangerment requires that the injured person was capable of understanding, mentally competent und able to make a free decision at the time. Cases where this is not the case—for example, in the case of minors, mental impairments, coercion, deception, or significant influence of exceptional psychological situations—can lead to attribution to third parties (i.e., as endangerment by others) or criminal liability for aiding and abetting.
Civil Law Aspects of Voluntary Self-Endangerment
In civil law, particularly regarding claims for damages under §§ 823 et seq. BGB, voluntary self-endangerment influences the extent of liability. If a person knowingly and willingly takes a risk, this can lead to full or partial release from liability for a third party.
Principle of Voluntary Self-Endangerment (At Own Risk)
According to case law, voluntary self-endangerment is assumed when someone consensually enters into a dangerous situation, such as with risky sports. Participation in motorsports, extreme sports, or certain hazardous hobbies can result in a co-causer or organizer being only partly or not at all liable for resulting damages.
Limits in Tort Law
However, there are limits in civil law as well: If the person was deceived, coerced, or unable to recognize the implications of their actions due to age, mental state, or other circumstances, the third party’s liability remains. Especially in the case of minors or the mentally ill, invoking voluntary self-endangerment is largely excluded.
Practical Applications and Case Groups
Criminal Law Disputes
Typical cases of voluntary self-endangerment include:
- Participation in ‘risk sports’ (e.g., base jumping, motorcycle racing)
- Drug or medication use, where assistants merely provide support
- High-risk dares or dangerous bets where the person acting is aware of the risk
- Suicide or participation in life-endangering acts at one’s own request
Civil Law Case Groups
Civil law encounters arise in:
- Exclusion of liability upon consent to hazardous events
- Claims for pain and suffering after disregarding obvious personal risks
- Liability in cases of joint endangerment (e.g., climbing together without safeguards)
Doctrinal Principles and Development
Principle of Personal Responsibility as an Expression of Self-Determination
The classification of voluntary self-endangerment is linked to the principle of self-determination enshrined in the Basic Law (Art. 2 para. 1 GG). Every person has the right to decide over bodily integrity and their own life, including the right to expose themselves to risk.
Development in Jurisprudence and Literature
Jurisprudence emphasizes the significance of actual self-determination. However, limits are drawn where freedom of decision is restricted. In particular cases, such as so-called ‘risk games’ (e.g., dangerous dares under peer pressure) or in the event of a temporary loss of the ability to control actions, voluntary self-endangerment is often denied.
Voluntary Self-Endangerment and Consent
Voluntary self-endangerment regularly implies consent to the risk, whereby the requirements for effective consent (clarity of consciousness, voluntariness, capacity for insight) are also crucial here. Without effective consent, liability of an involved party remains.
Consequences in Jurisprudence and Practice
The determination of voluntary self-endangerment means that an involved party—both in criminal and civil law—is generally not or only partially held responsible for the consequences of the act. In cases of doubt, it always depends on the specific circumstances, with courts in particular scrutinizing the degree of self-determination, the level of information about the risks, and the exclusion of external control.
References and Further Reading
For a deeper understanding of voluntary self-endangerment, it is advisable to consult relevant specialist literature and current case law from the higher courts, especially the Federal Court of Justice (BGH).
Summary:
Voluntary self-endangerment is a central concept in criminal and civil law that significantly influences the attribution of liability and criminal responsibility in risky actions. The decisive factors are the degree of self-determination, awareness, and freedom of decision. The concept forms the doctrinal basis for limiting third-party criminal and civil liability for risks knowingly assumed by individuals at their own peril.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of voluntary self-endangerment in criminal law?
Voluntary self-endangerment plays a central role in criminal law, particularly in distinguishing between punishable acts endangering others and unpunished self-harm. It is especially relevant in cases where a person voluntarily enters into danger and consequently suffers harm, such as through risky behavior or consenting to dangerous actions by others. According to prevailing opinion, third-party criminal liability is usually excluded if the victim autonomously instigated the dangerous act or consented to it, unless immorality is involved (§ 216, § 228 StGB). Personal responsibility requires that the person was capable of understanding, of legal age, and free from defects of will (mistake, deception, threat). This prevents, for example, rescuers or event organizers from being held criminally liable for unauthorized hazardous acts by adults.
In which areas of tort law is voluntary self-endangerment particularly relevant?
Voluntary self-endangerment is particularly relevant in cases of bodily injury offenses, negligent homicide, and failure to render assistance (§§ 212 ff, 222, 323c StGB). It is especially important in the context of ‘assisted suicide-like’ incidents, risky sporting events (for example, base jumping, extreme climbing), and medical treatments to which patients consent after being informed. Voluntary self-endangerment also serves as a criterion excluding criminal liability, for example, in cases of food endangerment (§ 84 StGB) or distributing dangerous substances to competent individuals. Each case is assessed individually, taking into account the specific life and factual circumstances.
What requirements must be met for voluntary self-endangerment?
For voluntary self-endangerment to be assumed, case law requires several criteria: The affected person must, on the one hand, be legally competent, which generally means having reached the minimum age (usually majority) and not suffering from mental or psychological impairments that significantly restrict their understanding or ability to control their actions. On the other hand, comprehensive knowledge of the risks and a free and informed decision are necessary. This includes informed consent and the absence of significant pressure, deception, or other defects of will. The consent must also exist at the time of the act and must not violate public morals (§ 228 StGB).
Is involvement of third parties punishable despite voluntary self-endangerment?
If the self-endangerment is assessed as truly voluntary according to the criteria above, criminal liability of third parties—e.g., for bodily injury or negligent homicide—is generally excluded. This holds even if, for example, they provide a dangerous device or (sufficiently) warn about risks. Only in exceptional cases, such as when perpetrators exploit their superiority in an immoral way or significantly manipulate the will, can liability remain. It is important to distinguish in criminal law between self-endangerment and endangerment by others: If a danger is mainly caused by a third party and the victim’s act does not add an independent element, liability remains possible.
How does voluntary self-endangerment relate to failure to render assistance (§ 323c StGB)?
In cases of voluntary self-endangerment, provided it is undertaken by a person capable of understanding and acting, outsiders are generally not legally required (in a guarantor role) to avert the danger. This means that following accidents resulting from voluntary risky behavior, there is no legal duty to provide assistance unless special circumstances (such as a guarantor obligation, e.g., doctor, specific duties of care) exist. However, this does not apply if the self-endangerment was no longer voluntary—for example, as a result of unconsciousness or deception.
Are there limits to the effectiveness of consent in the context of self-endangerment?
Yes, the effectiveness of consent to a self-harming act is subject to statutory and jurisprudential limits. On the one hand, § 228 StGB provides that bodily harm remains punishable despite consent if the act violates public morals, such as in cases of particularly severe or degrading interventions. § 216 StGB (killing on demand) also recognizes voluntary but, within narrow boundaries, only limitedly effective consent under criminal law. Furthermore, consents by minors, legally incapacitated persons, or those given under duress, threat, or mistake are invalid. If self-endangerment involves protective laws (e.g., occupational safety law), liability can remain despite consent.
What is the significance of voluntary self-endangerment in civil and insurance law?
Even outside criminal law, voluntary self-endangerment plays a major role: In civil law, it can lead to a reduction or exclusion of claims for damages; in insurance law, for example, the obligation to pay may lapse in the case of ‘grossly negligent self-damage’ or suicide under certain circumstances. The main factor is whether the injured party is found to have contributed significantly to their own loss. However, the criteria differ and depend on specific statutory regulations.
What role does voluntary self-endangerment play in medical procedures?
In the medical context, voluntary self-endangerment is particularly central to patient education and consent. Medical interventions—including those involving significant risks—are only not punishable if the patient consents voluntarily and autonomously after being fully informed. It is strictly examined whether the treating party has properly informed the patient about the nature, scope, risks, and alternatives and whether the patient was able, due to their psychological state, to make an autonomous decision. Otherwise, liability for bodily harm (§ 223 StGB) could arise.
