Real estate perspective: how to determine the liability of the property company when the owner's proprietary part is damaged.
Published:
2021-11-05
Case Introduction On the afternoon of March 10, 2018, Yu found that the newly renovated house was damaged due to water leakage upstairs, causing damage to the bedroom roof and living room ceiling. Yu then found the property. After checking the property, the cause of the water leakage was the loosening of the water pipe plug in the upstairs toilet. After the property company failed to contact the upstairs owner, it immediately took measures such as closing the tap water valve to deal with the situation on site. After the incident, Yu communicated with the upstairs owner many times on the issue of loss compensation, but failed, so he took the upstairs owner and the property company to court. focus of controversy Should the property company be liable for compensation when the owner's proprietary part is damaged? court decision (I) court of first instance judgment: The court of first instance held that the legitimate rights and interests of citizens are protected by law. If the perpetrator infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others through fault, he shall bear tort liability. In this case, the damage to the plaintiff's house was caused by water leakage from the upstairs owner's house. The upstairs owner should compensate the plaintiff for the losses caused by this. The defendant's property company, as the maintenance and manager of the residential area, only closed the valve after receiving the water leakage from the residents. It did not notify the plaintiff to carry out inspection in time and the defendant to carry out maintenance. As a result, the plaintiff's losses were expanded, the property company was sentenced to bear the plaintiff's compensation of 3000 yuan. (II) court of second instance judgment: After receiving the repair notice, the appellant's property company failed to contact the owner upstairs and closed the main tap water valve of the staircase pipeline well. It can be seen that the property company has fulfilled the duties of property management, and according to Item 7 of Article 23 of the previous property service contract, Party B (the property company) shall not undertake the insurance custody obligation for the personal and property used by the owner and non-owner during the contract period (except for other special contract provisions), and Yu has not provided evidence to prove that he has signed a special contract with the property company for property custody, therefore, this court believes that the property company does not have liability for breach of contract, the court of first instance to the property company has a certain liability for breach of contract judgment that its liability for compensation has no factual and legal basis, belongs to the determination of facts and the application of the law is improper, the court to correct. Lawyer's opinion Through case search, in judicial practice, for accidents such as household water leakage, the court has different opinions when deciding whether the property company is responsible. For example, in this case, the court of first instance held that the property company, as the maintenance and manager of the community, had defects in performing its maintenance and management obligations, so it should bear certain liability for breach of contract; while the court of second instance, based on the clear agreement of the property service contract, decided that the property company did not bear the responsibility to be revised. Our lawyer believes that in terms of the legal relationship of property management, although the property company is the maintenance and manager of the community. However, according to the relevant property service agreement, the property company is the maintenance and manager of the public areas and public facilities and equipment of the community, and the exclusive part of the owner and its internal facilities and equipment are not the scope of responsibility of the property company. Then, it should be determined whether the property company has fulfilled its corresponding management responsibilities within the scope of responsibility for the public areas and public facilities and equipment in the community. In this case, the property company took timely measures to close the tap water valve after discovering the water leakage, and notified the leaking residents, which should be recognized As fulfilling the corresponding management obligations. In addition, this case is a tort dispute, from the tort legal relationship, the property company does not meet the constituent elements of infringement. Therefore, the property company should not be liable for compensation. Related Cases (I) Wang mou and Li mou dispute over compensation for property damage (2013 Licheng min Chu zi no 2566) Court decision: This court believes that according to the law, the perpetrator shall be liable for compensation if he infringes on the property rights and interests of others. Defendant Li Mingshuang damaged plaintiff Wang Rong's house due to a broken water pipe in his home. Defendant Li Mingshuang argued that the corresponding loss caused by the water leakage was due to multiple causes and one result. The house delivered by the third party Mingdu Real Estate Company had quality problems. The faucet installed by the third party Jinbi Property Company had quality problems. The claim was a contract dispute with the third party and had nothing to do with the tort in this case. Defendant Li Mingshuang should be liable. (II) Shanxi Yunxin Property Management Co., Ltd. Xiangyuan Branch and Yu Bei and Li Yingjun Property Damage Compensation Dispute (2019 Jin 04 Min Zhong No. 1061) Court decision: the second instance only revolves around the appeal request and factual reasons of the parties. In this case, it has been found out that the damage to the appellee's yingbei house was caused by the water leakage in the appellee's Li yingjun house. the appellee yunxin property company received a report from 203 residents for repair. the telephone contact with Li yingjun failed and closed the main tap water valves of 403 households in the staircase pipeline well. It can be seen that Yunxin Property Company has fulfilled its duties of property management, and it is stipulated in Item 7 of Article 23 of the Preliminary Property Service Contract for Affordable Housing in Xiangyuan County provided by Yunxin Property Company that Party B (Yunxin Property Company) shall not undertake the insurance custody obligation for the personal and property used by the owners and non-owners during the contract period (except for other special provisions in the contract), however, Yu Bei did not provide evidence to prove that he had signed a special contract with Yunxin Property Company for property custody. Therefore, the court held that Yunxin Property Company did not have any liability for breach of contract. The court of first instance ruled that Yunxin Property Company had certain liability for breach of contract and had no factual and legal basis for its liability for compensation. It was improper to determine the facts and apply the law. The court corrected it. (III) Wu mou, a property management company and a real estate company (2011 fu min Chu zi no 3195) The court decision: ...... a property management company as a property management company, its responsibility is mainly for the community to carry out professional management, maintenance of public facilities in the community, the owner of the house of proprietary facilities is not in its scope of responsibility, and a property management company after receiving a phone call from Wu took appropriate measures to deal with the incident. Wu also did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that a property management company was at fault in this case, and a property management company has no legal responsibility and should not be liable for compensation. ......
Case Introduction
On the afternoon of March 10, 2018, Yu found that the newly renovated house was damaged due to water leakage upstairs, causing damage to the bedroom roof and living room ceiling. Yu then found the property. After checking the property, the cause of the water leakage was the loosening of the water pipe plug in the upstairs toilet. After the property company failed to contact the upstairs owner, it immediately took measures such as closing the tap water valve to deal with the situation on site. After the incident, Yu communicated with the upstairs owner many times on the issue of loss compensation, but failed, so he took the upstairs owner and the property company to court.
focus of controversy
Should the property company be liable for compensation when the owner's proprietary part is damaged?
court decision
(I) court of first instance judgment:
The court of first instance held that the legitimate rights and interests of citizens are protected by law. If the perpetrator infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others through fault, he shall bear tort liability. In this case, the damage to the plaintiff's house was caused by water leakage from the upstairs owner's house. The upstairs owner should compensate the plaintiff for the losses caused by this. The defendant's property company, as the maintenance and manager of the residential area, only closed the valve after receiving the water leakage from the residents. It did not notify the plaintiff to carry out inspection in time and the defendant to carry out maintenance. As a result, the plaintiff's losses were expanded, the property company was sentenced to bear the plaintiff's compensation of 3000 yuan.
(II) court of second instance judgment:
After receiving the repair notice, the appellant's property company failed to contact the owner upstairs and closed the main tap water valve of the staircase pipeline well. It can be seen that the property company has fulfilled the duties of property management, and according to Item 7 of Article 23 of the previous property service contract, Party B (the property company) shall not undertake the insurance custody obligation for the personal and property used by the owner and non-owner during the contract period (except for other special contract provisions), and Yu has not provided evidence to prove that he has signed a special contract with the property company for property custody, therefore, this court believes that the property company does not have liability for breach of contract, the court of first instance to the property company has a certain liability for breach of contract judgment that its liability for compensation has no factual and legal basis, belongs to the determination of facts and the application of the law is improper, the court to correct.
Lawyer's opinion
Through case search, in judicial practice, for accidents such as household water leakage, the court has different opinions when deciding whether the property company is responsible. For example, in this case, the court of first instance held that the property company, as the maintenance and manager of the community, had defects in performing its maintenance and management obligations, so it should bear certain liability for breach of contract; while the court of second instance, based on the clear agreement of the property service contract, decided that the property company did not bear the responsibility to be revised.
Our lawyer believes that in terms of the legal relationship of property management, although the property company is the maintenance and manager of the community. However, according to the relevant property service agreement,The property company is the maintenance and management of public areas and public facilities and equipment in the community.The owner's proprietary part and its internal facilities and equipment are not the scope of responsibility of the property company. Then, it should be determined whether the property company has fulfilled its corresponding management responsibilities within the scope of responsibility for the public areas and public facilities and equipment in the community. In this case, the property company took timely measures to close the tap water valve after discovering the water leakage, and notified the leaking residents, which should be recognized As fulfilling the corresponding management obligations.In addition, this case is a tort dispute, from the tort legal relationship, the property company does not meet the constituent elements of infringement. Therefore, the property company should not be liable for compensation.
Related Cases
(I) Wang mou and Li mou dispute over compensation for property damage (2013 Licheng min Chu zi no 2566)
Court decision:The Court held that, according to the law, the perpetrator should be liable for compensation if he infringes on the property rights and interests of others. Defendant Li Mingshuang suffered damage to plaintiff Wang Rong's house due to a broken water pipe in his home,Defendant Li Mingshuang argued that the corresponding losses caused by water leakage belonged to multiple causes and one result. The houses delivered by the third party Mingdu Real Estate Company had quality problems. The faucet installed by the third party Jinbi Property Company had quality problems. The claim was a contract dispute with a third party and had nothing to do with the tort relationship in this case.Defendant Li Mingshuang shall be liable for compensation.
(II) Shanxi Yunxin Property Management Co., Ltd. Xiangyuan Branch and Yu Bei and Li Yingjun Property Damage Compensation Dispute (2019 Jin 04 Min Zhong No. 1061)
Court decision:The second instance only revolves around the appeal request and factual reasons of the parties. in this case, it has been ascertained that the damage to the house of the appellee yingbei was caused by the leaking water in the house of the appellee li yingjun,The appellant Yunxin Property Company received a report from 203 residents for repair, but failed to contact Li Yingjun by telephone and closed the main tap water valves of 403 households in the staircase pipeline well. It can be seen that Yunxin Property Company has fulfilled its duties of property management.In addition, Item 7 of Article 23 of the Xiangyuan County Affordable Housing Pre-Property Service Contract provided by Yunxin Property Company stipulates:During the contract period, Party B (Yunxin Property Company) shall not assume the obligation of insurance custody for the persons and properties used by the owners and non-owners (unless otherwise stipulated in the special contract)However, Yu Bei did not provide evidence to prove that he had signed a special contract with Yunxin Property Company for property custody. Therefore, the court held that Yunxin Property Company did not have any liability for breach of contract. The court of first instance ruled that Yunxin Property Company had certain liability for breach of contract and had no factual and legal basis for its liability for compensation, which was improper in determining the facts and applying the law. The court corrected it.
(III) Wu mou, a property management company and a real estate company (2011 fu min Chu zi no 3195)
Court decision:……As a property management company, a property management company is mainly responsible for professional management of the community and maintenance of public facilities in the community. The proprietary facilities in the owner's house are not within the scope of its responsibilities, and a property management company is receiving a call from Wu. After taking corresponding measures to deal with the incident. Wu also did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that a property management company was at fault in this case, and a property management company has no legal responsibility and should not be liable for compensation.……
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
