If the learner caused the accident then the insurance co. of the car they where driving will pay.
If a car is "Vollkasko" insured the insurance will pay the drivers car damages. The insurance may take recourse. The bonus will usually drop, causing deferred costs to the car owner.
Generally speaking the driver causing the accident is liable for any and all damages, but as described above he'll be able to dump some onto insurance(s). However, a learner is only liable to the extent of his abilities, the "teacher" on the right front seat has to keep the learner within his abilities' limits (e.g. Autobahn isn't allowed until the leaner is ready for the exam, so if an accident happens on an Autobahn with an immature learner the teacher is fully liable). The teacher also has to make sure the drive itself is legal, i.e. he's at least 23 years old, has a uncoditional license, both are sober, "L"-sign on the back, the learner has a learners licence, etc.
So, in a standard situation the learner will probably be liable for the damages he causes to the car he's driving, as well as the increased insurance premium.
For everything else: As has been said already, ask the insurance. They know, it's their core business.
Source:
Among other things this ruling , particularly
"Auch der Lernende ist Führer und für Übertretung der Verkehrsregeln des MFG strafbar, wenn er sie vorsätzlich oder im Rahmen seiner Fähigkeiten fahrlässig begeht (Anderung der Rechtsprechung)."
Do note the "im Rahmen seiner Fähigkeiten fahrlässig", negligently within the limits of his capabilities.
Unless she gets the owner's car insurance details, she might not be able to call the insurance company. They're currently not exactly on speaking terms!
My understanding is that the car is either covered by the car's insurance, in which case the insurer can go after her. But probably won't. Or it's only 3rd party. But I can't see that working either. If you allow someone to drive your car, you've allowed that risk. If you're looking after a learner, then that applies even more strongly.
My only interest in this is that I'm a car owner and may one day sit with a learner driver. I don't know the woman who was driving, nor the car owner.
I do love the two standard responses on this forum. 1) Phone up and ask and 2) You're never actually insured if you need to claim. It's certainly my experience over the last few years that hardly anyone living here actually has any idea of their rights and duties - but so many people have unfounded opinions!
By the sound of it the car owner only had 3rd party insurance - and has had to repair the car at their own cost.
What contract is in place between the learner driver and the car owner? Was the former aware of the insurance in place prior to driving the owners car?
In the special case of the learner being accompanied by the owner of the car, the question will be if the owner implicitly accepted the risk of an accident by giving the control of the car he was travelling in over to the learner.
As at least one article points out, it is always good to explicitly agree in advance who is responsible for any uninsured loss, loss of no claims bonus etc. in such cases of car lending.
(German) https://www.ktipp.ch/artikel/d/auto-...nfallschaeden/
(German) http://www.comparis.ch/auto/junglenk...to-fahren.aspx
(German) http://www.blick.ch/life/ratgeber/ge...t-id87688.html
(German) https://www.saldo.ch/artikel/d/wer-z...liehenen-auto/
So my opinion: the person accompanying the learner is responsible. The learner is using the car under his/her guidance, after all, the learner doesn't have a licence to drive a car alone, so if it goes sour... tough shit.
I'd refuse to pay and say "see you in court".
Learner says "see you in court" - owner does, owner wins, owners insurance turns round and says "your insurance doesn't cover for hire, repay us the 3rd party costs".
The question one should ask oneself before letting anyone take control of your vehicle (with or without dual controls) is "do I trust the person not to cause an accident, and if not, then am I willing to take on the risk?".
If the answer is no, then you shouldn't take anyone out without first going through any and all insurance cover checks. To me, the inherent responsibility lies with the person who is accompanying the learner unless otherwise explicitely agreed upon.
The ruling I quoted above may be a bit dated, but this logic is explicitly mentioned, and more. It's summed up neatly be the quote above, basically: The learner is responsible within his capabilities.
As for the repair costs:
This is tricky, usually it's "who orders also pays", the owner can't have the car repaired nilly-willy and expect the learner to pay automatically as theoretically the learner might have done the repairs himself, or found a cheaper garage. The possibility that more might have been repaired than just the damage caused by the accident seems to be just a theoretical one in this case.
But then again the learner (imho) is the culprit and thus would otherwise have had to pay the full repair cost. Dunno.
dodgyken has a point imo. If a payment was agreed upon, and that payment was to cover costs (say, 30CHF an hour for maybe 30-50Rp per Kilometer, including the increased wear) that would most probably be OK. Otherwise the insurance company may classify it as for-profit, and I wouldn't on this to be covered by the insurance.
Which would be an argument for lawyers.
It's possible he might have had more done than necessary - replacing entire bits that maybe could have been repaired. But a good point about "who orders also pays". I remember one knock my wife had, and the knocked was heard by witnesses saying "now I can have that respray done".