Viewpoint | The upper owner's sewage pipe leaks into the lower storeroom. Should the property management company be liable for compensation?
Published:
2020-05-06
In real life, it is not uncommon for the owner's property to be damaged due to leakage or seepage of sewage pipes. As a result, owners often have conflicts with property service companies or upper and lower-level neighbors due to compensation issues, and refuse to pay property fees or demand compensation. However, in the trial practice, if the owner refuses to pay the property fee according to this, the court believes that if the property service company provides normal and flawless property services, the owner generally does not support the refusal to pay the property fee, and it is recommended to sue separately for its losses.
Brief of the case:
Recently, the author accepted the entrustment of the defendant's property service company to act as an agent for a case of property service contract dispute. In this case, the plaintiff is the owner of a residential area, and the defendant is a company that provides property services for the community. In December 2013, the plaintiff penetrated into his storeroom due to a leak in the sewage pipe of the upper owner's storeroom, causing the fur stored in the storeroom to be soaked, resulting in property losses. The plaintiff has repeatedly reported to the defendant's property service company and demanded compensation for the losses, but none of them have been resolved. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit to the court and requested a decree: 1. The defendant's property service company compensated the plaintiff's property loss of 190074 yuan; 2. The case acceptance fee shall be borne by the defendant's property service company.
The author agent opinion:
First of all, the plaintiff's claim has exceeded the statutory limitation period, and the court should reject its claim in accordance with the law.
Article 188 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of my country stipulates that the limitation period for requesting protection of civil rights from the people's court is three years. Where the law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail. The period of limitation of action shall be calculated from the date on which the obligee knew or should have known of the damage to the right and the obligor. Where the law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail. Article 192 stipulates that when the limitation period expires, the obligor may raise a defense of non-performance.
The plaintiffs sued for property damage in December 2013, but did not file a lawsuit until six years later. The property service company is required to bear the liability for tort compensation, and it has not provided evidence to prove that it has claimed rights to the defendant property service company within the statutory limitation period. According to the General Principles of Civil Law, the plaintiff's claim has exceeded the statutory limitation period. Should not be protected by the court.
Secondly, the plaintiff's lawsuit is actually a tort dispute, while the property service company has no tort and is not a qualified defendant in this case. There is no so-called sewage drainage pipe in the plaintiff's storage room. The pipe is tied to the upper owner's storage room. The water leakage occurred in the upper owner's storage room, and the accumulated water leaked to the plaintiff. This case belongs to the upper-class owner's infringement problem or the upper-class owner's indoor pipeline quality problem, and the property service company has no infringement, is not a qualified defendant in this case, the plaintiff should claim rights to the upper-class owner or housing developer. To this end, the court should reject the plaintiff's claim against the property service company in accordance with the law.
Thirdly, the property service company has fulfilled its obligation of informing and maintaining in accordance with the agreement of the property service contract, and there is no dereliction of duty or fault at all. However, the plaintiff refused to pay the property service fee to the property management company as agreed because the problem was not resolved. This is a breach of contract and should be liable for breach of contract. In December 2013, the staff of the property service company found water flowing out of the door of the storeroom of the upper owner of the plaintiff's storeroom during the inspection of the public area of the community. At that time, the staff immediately called the owner of the storeroom and waited for him to come back to open the door to clean up the accumulated water and repair the pipes. When the upper owner said that he could not get back in the field, the staff immediately closed the sewage pipe in the storage room and cut off the source of sewage infiltration. And after the owner went home and opened the door of the storage room, the property service company immediately organized the relevant staff of the property to repair the pipeline. From this, it can be seen that in the whole process of handling the water leakage incident, the property service company did not have any dereliction of duty or fault to speak of. After finding that the upper owner of the plaintiff had a water leakage in the storage room, it performed its duties in strict accordance with the agreement of the Property Service Contract, and both the owner and the plaintiff of the water leakage in the storage room fulfilled their obligation of notification, and actively assisted in handling the water leakage incident without any violation of the property service contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff has no right to claim the property service company for breach of contract in accordance with the Property Management Contract.
Finally, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove that there was a direct causal relationship between the behavior of the property company and the loss claimed by the plaintiff, and failed to provide relevant evidence to prove its actual loss. The court should reject its claim.
According to the rules of evidence, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove that there was a direct causal relationship between the behavior of the property company and the loss claimed by the plaintiff, nor did it provide evidence to prove the real existence of the loss and the specific and accurate amount. The plaintiff claimed that the fur stored in the underground storage room was soaked and caused losses. The author did not find any photos of the fur stored in the basement or the photos or objects after the fur was damaged. At the same time, the plaintiff did not submit an appraisal opinion to prove the amount of the damage to the fur, and the witness testimony provided by the plaintiff only proved that he assisted in moving the fur to the storage room in late September 2013, and did not prove the damage to the fur he saw with his own eyes, and the witness did not testify in court. The bank transaction details provided by the plaintiff can only prove that the plaintiff bought fur, not that the fur was damaged. In addition, according to common sense, for such valuable fur stored in the basement, also seriously do not conform to common sense. Therefore, its claim for compensation from the property service company should not be supported by the court.
Agent Policy:
The author believes that if this case follows the plaintiff's thinking, there is water leakage and damage, it is certain that the property service company should bear the liability for compensation, which is also reasonable. However, as a legal person, we should think about the problem from the legal point of view first. After accepting the entrustment of the defendant's property service company, after understanding the case and analyzing the plaintiff's claim and existing evidence, the author thinks that the key to this case should be to work hard on the cause of the case. In the face of the established facts, we should dare to innovate from the way of thinking, complicate simple problems, and then argue from the legal point of view. The author thinks that if the reasonable factors are ignored, the property service company in this case should not bear any compensation liability from the legal point of view. The author determines the two ideas of "one real and one virtual", and the virtual and real cooperate with each other. The so-called real, that is, tort disputes, the so-called virtual, that is, property service contract disputes. If the cause of infringement is determined, four constituent elements must be met: behavior, fault, damage facts and causality, which is more difficult for the plaintiff. If a dispute over a property service contract is settled, it is also difficult for a property service company. When these two ideas are real and virtual, the virtual and real are shown in court, and the plaintiff needs to make a choice in a short period of time, the plaintiff chooses the infringement dispute. And because the plaintiff did not provide evidence to prove that there is a causal relationship between the behavior of the property service company and the claimed loss, and the plaintiff also failed to provide evidence to prove the real existence of the loss and the specific and accurate amount of the loss. The author has always insisted that the property service company has no responsibility. Although the host judge has repeatedly communicated with the author that the amount of compensation for mediation has dropped from 190,000 yuan to 100,000 yuan, the author insists that he does not agree with mediation. Finally, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the lawsuit, and the court decided to allow it.
Article Link:
General Provisions of Civil Law
Article 188 [Ordinary Limitation of Actions, Maximum Period of Protection of Rights] The limitation period for requesting protection of civil rights from a people's court is three years. Where the law provides otherwise, such provisions shall prevail.
Article 192 [Legal Consequences of Expiration of Limitation Period] Where the limitation period expires, the obligor may raise a defense of non-performance.
Key words:
Previous article
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
