An employee fell while commuting to work on his e-scooter, without third-party involvement. He filed a claim for disability pension with the responsible statutory insurance provider (AUVA). The claim was rejected, and the Supreme Court (OGH) also ruled against the plaintiff.
The OGH explained that statutory accident insurance only covers typical commuting hazards, such as snow and ice, poor visibility, or specific traffic dangers. While insured persons can generally choose their mode of transport, a line must be drawn between typical commuting risks and private life risks, ultimately based on a value judgment.
Since monowheels and e-scooters require special skills and cannot guarantee safe riding due to their design, resulting commuting accidents are not covered by insurance.
However, the OGH clarified: If a fall with an e-scooter or monowheel could not have been prevented even when using a bicycle, statutory accident insurance is obligated to provide benefits. In such cases, a typical commuting hazard would have materialized. However, the insured person must prove this, which is typically difficult in accidents without third-party involvement.
For relevant OGH precedents, see here Andreas Tinhofer’s article in Der Standard (in German).