Strong urination can be asserted as an emergency according to § 16 OWiG in fine proceedings, but courts only recognize this in exceptional cases.
Can the urge to urinate constitute an emergency situation according to § 16 OWiG?
Sometimes, in the course of a fine proceedings, the person concerned argues that they exceeded the speed limit because they had to urinate urgently and wanted to reach a place where they could stop. The person concerned is thus trying to present an emergency situation in accordance with § 16 OWiG, which can lead to the illegality of the act being dropped. If the speeding was justified by an emergency, this would result in an acquittal. OLG Brandenburg NZV 2020, 106.
However, the tendency of case law is critical. Courts regularly deny the requirements of § 16 OWiG and argue: The mere fact of a certain physical disposition is not enough here, since otherwise the group of people affected would, as it were, receive a "carte blanche" for behavior contrary to the rules in road traffic. In principle, the person affected must plan their journey with such a physical condition in mind, take certain imponderables (such as traffic jams, diversions, etc.) into his plans and take appropriate precautions or, if necessary, react in good time to the initial urge to urinate or defecate, so that a strong urge to relieve himself does not tempt him to behave in a manner contrary to duty.
Are there cases in which the urge to urinate is recognized as an emergency after all?
Only in exceptional cases can the presentation of sudden urge to urinate lead to a finding of necessity or to a decision to refrain from ordering a standard driving ban. If the person concerned provides facts to support the existence of such an exceptional case, the judge must (also) deal with these facts when assessing the legal consequences and, if necessary, make the appropriate findings. OLG Hamm, SVR 2018, 35
If the person concerned admits, for example, that he only has limited continence after a prostate operation and that he felt a strong, painful urge to urinate during the offense, so that he was only focused on "pulling over" and had not been able to find a suitable opportunity to stop on the highway before that, the speeding could be justified.
The question of when and where the person concerned started their journey and how long they had already been on the road is crucial for the court's assessment. If they had the opportunity to take a break before starting the journey or during the journey at an earlier point in time, there is no question of an emergency. Nor can necessity be invoked if the driver could have anticipated the need to urinate or defecate as soon as the speed restriction began. AG Lüdinghausen DAR 2014, 217
When is there no question of an emergency?
There is no emergency if the driver had to expect the urge to urinate before the start of the speed restriction. Anyone who, for example, knows at the start of the journey that they are suffering from an increased urge to urinate due to illness, but does not take the necessary precautions to be able to drive as required, is even subject to an increased accusation of a breach of duty. OLG Hamm NStZ-RR 2017, 390
If there was a rest stop shortly before the measurement location, then a statement to that effect should not be made.
It can sometimes even increase the extent of the breach of duty if the person concerned nevertheless carries out a journey despite a corresponding physical disposition and exceeds the permissible maximum speed without taking precautions that are suitable to avoid a suddensudden strong urge to urinate or to relieve him in good time. This case constellation even suggests intentional (instead of negligent) exceeding of the permissible maximum speed. OLG Brandenburg NZV 2020, 106
Our tip:
The courts usually do not accept a general appeal to necessity due to the urge to urinate. Those who suffer from an increased urge to urinate for health reasons should take this into account when planning their journey and take regular breaks. Otherwise, exceeding the speed limit may not only be penalized, but even be considered intentional misconduct.
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.