Long-term effects of a ski-lift accident: periodic compensation or a lump sum?

Section 14(1) EKHG identifies three categories of future loss: loss or reduction of earning capacity, increased needs and maintenance claims of third parties. The provision generally requires these future losses to be paid as a monetary annuity. Subsection 2 provides for payment one month in advance.

Subsection 4 states that a maintenance entitlement against a third party does not exclude the right to the annuity. An injured passenger can rely on section 14 only where an entitlement to compensation under the EKHG exists in the specific case. The liability basis, accident circumstances and relevant loss category need to be checked.

Section 14 addresses the future payment in annuity form. Earnings already lost and other heads of damage need separate assessment. A statutory or private accident-insurance benefit is also distinct from an EKHG damages annuity.

Section 14(3) EKHG sets out two requirements. The person entitled to compensation must seek capital for important reasons. At the same time, the one-off payment must be economically reasonable for the person liable. Each requirement needs its own assessment.

Serious long-term injuries alone do not establish a right to convert the annuity. Both statutory requirements must be met. The law calls for an individual assessment rather than routine conversion of every annuity.

The subsection sets no fixed threshold or prescribed calculation formula. The legal basis, future loss categories, important reason and economic reasonableness should therefore be considered separately.

Section 14(3) EKHG gives no exhaustive list of important reasons. The relevant question is what concrete benefit a one-off payment would provide in the person’s circumstances. The reason should explain why capital is needed instead of continuing annuity payments.

A planned adaptation for accessible housing, assistive equipment or another significant measure may be a reason to document capital needs. Those examples describe individual circumstances. They do not automatically satisfy the statutory requirement.

Collect medical evidence, a prognosis of earning capacity, expected care and support costs, and estimates for specific measures. Record when each future need is expected and how long it may continue.

The law expressly makes a capital payment conditional on it being economically reasonable for the person liable. The review therefore includes the amount requested and the economic circumstances of the person who must pay.

Simply multiplying a monthly annuity by an assumed number of years does not show that the lump sum is appropriate. The loss categories, prognosis and basis for the amount need to be examined. Section 14 itself does not prescribe a capitalisation factor.

If information about ability to pay or the amount claimed is incomplete, this requirement remains unresolved. A well-supported demand should explain the sum and its basis so that economic reasonableness can be assessed in concrete terms.

Compare an annuity with a lump sum for the same future losses. Consider monthly needs, expected duration, possible changes in health and the cost of ongoing assistance.

A lump sum gives the person immediate access to capital. That amount must also cover the future losses included in the payment for the relevant period. If care or assistive-equipment costs rise, or the need continues longer than expected, the capital may be used up sooner.

Where long-term effects remain uncertain, obtain the best available medical prognosis before deciding. A comparison of annuity needs, one-off costs, uncertainties and available reserves makes the consequences clearer. The scope of the losses covered by the payment also needs careful review.