Real Estate Perspective | A Study on the Responsibility for Damage to Houses Caused by Blocked Public Sewage Pipes in Residential Areas

Disputes arising from property damage caused by backflow due to blockages in residential public sewage pipes are essentially tort claims. Based on the review of relevant judicial documents, potential tortfeasors are generally the developer, the property management company, and the homeowners sharing the public sewage pipes.

According to Article 1170 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "If two or more persons engage in acts that endanger the personal or property safety of others, and the acts of one or several persons cause damage to others, the tortfeasor shall bear responsibility; if the specific tortfeasor cannot be determined, the actors shall bear joint liability." It can be seen that in such lawsuits, it is necessary to clarify the causes of sewage pipe blockages and the extent of damages. Therefore, it is generally necessary to conduct a professional appraisal of the causes of sewage pipe blockages and the extent of damages through judicial appraisal. Judicial appraisal can determine the specific causes of sewage pipe blockages, such as whether it is due to improper use by other homeowners, pipe aging, design defects, or other technical issues. This information is very important for clarifying the facts of the case and the allocation of responsibility. In addition, judicial appraisal can relatively accurately assess the property losses caused by pipe blockages, including direct material losses (such as furniture, flooring, etc.) and indirect losses (such as rental losses, repair costs, etc.), and can clarify the relevant compensation amounts.

Of course, there are also situations where judicial appraisal cannot be conducted or is revoked. In this case, the specific facts of the case should be combined, and according to Article 1172 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "If two or more persons separately commit tortious acts causing the same damage, and the extent of responsibility can be determined, each shall bear corresponding responsibility; if it is difficult to determine the extent of responsibility, they shall bear responsibility equally." This clarifies the proportion of responsibility to be borne by the relevant parties.

Before analyzing the specific issues of the developer's responsibility in disputes arising from backflow due to blockages in residential public sewage pipes, it is necessary to clarify the types of responsibilities the developer needs to bear to determine the basis of the homeowners' claims. Generally speaking, disputes arising from property damage caused by backflow due to blockages in residential public sewage pipes belong to tort disputes. However, the developer is different from other parties, as there is a sales contract relationship between the developer and the homeowner regarding the property. Therefore, when property losses occur due to blockages and backflow in public sewage pipes, the cause may be that the developer has not fully fulfilled its contractual obligations, resulting in design or construction issues. In this case, homeowners can not only claim responsibility from the developer based on tort but also based on contract. However, in practice, most blockages and backflows in public sewage pipes are often caused by multiple factors, and the property management company and homeowners sharing the same public sewage pipe may also be potential tortfeasors, especially in cases beyond the developer's warranty period. To facilitate case handling, homeowners may also choose to claim against the developer based on tort.

Specifically regarding the issue of responsibility, when there are design, construction, and other issues with the residential sewage pipes caused by the developer, the developer, as the responsible party, should bear a certain proportion of the compensation responsibility based on their scope of responsibility and degree of fault. The specific proportion of responsibility depends on the degree of fault of each party and the actual damage caused. In handling such cases, courts usually consider factors such as whether the property is within the warranty period, whether the responsible party was aware and should have taken measures to avoid damage, and whether the homeowner reported the loss in a timely manner to determine the allocation of responsibility.

Reference case: (2021) Yu 09 Min Zhong 3307.

Court opinion:The house involved in the appeal purchased by Liu was developed by the respondent real estate company in a newly built community, and due to the respondent real estate company's reasons, the property certificate for the house purchased by the appellant has not yet been processed. The house purchased by Liu is located on the third floor of the building, but because the drainage pipes on the first and second floors are designed as separate drainage pipes, the house purchased by Liu shares the drainage pipe with other residents on different floors, resulting in the drainage pipe of the house purchased by Liu actually being located at the bottom of the shared drainage pipe of the building. This creates an unreasonable risk of backflow of sewage into the house when the shared drainage pipe is blocked, and there are design and construction defects, which are hidden defects for the residents on that floor, making it impossible for buyers to discover when purchasing and using the house. However, the respondent real estate company did not inform the appellant of the design and construction structure of the drainage pipe being located at the bottom of the shared drainage pipe when selling the house, causing the appellant to be unable to foresee and take timely measures to avoid losses caused by the backflow of sewage from the shared drainage pipe when purchasing and renovating the house. Therefore, for the house purchased by the appellant, the backflow of sewage caused by the blockage of the shared drainage pipe has caused property losses to the appellant, and the respondent real estate company has obvious fault responsibility. Analyzing the specific case, it is appropriate for the respondent real estate company to bear 35% of the compensation responsibility.

Article 943 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China states: "Property service providers shall maintain the basic order within the property service area and take reasonable measures to protect the personal and property safety of homeowners. For behaviors that violate relevant laws and regulations on public security, environmental protection, fire safety, etc., within the property service area, property service providers shall take reasonable measures to stop them in a timely manner, report to the relevant administrative departments, and assist in handling them." In addition, Article 985 states: "If the manager fails to perform or fully perform their duties, resulting in damage to others, they shall bear tort liability."

If the property management company fails to fulfill its maintenance obligations for the public sewage pipes, leading to blockages and backflow that cause property losses to homeowners, then the property management company needs to bear corresponding compensation responsibility based on its degree of fault. If the property management company can prove that it has fulfilled its maintenance obligations, or that the losses were caused by force majeure or the homeowners' own reasons, it may not bear responsibility or may reduce its responsibility.

As mentioned earlier, the determination of specific responsibilities often requires judicial appraisal, on-site investigations, and other methods to clarify the facts, and the degree of responsibility of the property management company should be judged based on specific circumstances. If the property management company indeed has fault, the court will determine its corresponding compensation responsibility based on the degree of fault.

Reference case: (2023) Shan 06 Min Zhong 1805.

Court opinion:Article 35, paragraph 2 of the "Property Management Regulations" states: "If the property service enterprise fails to fulfill the provisions of the property service contract, resulting in damage to the personal and property safety of the owner, it shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities according to law." Therefore, the property company should fully perform its obligations in accordance with the property service contract and relevant regulations. The property company should pay attention to the management of public sewage and drainage pipes that are prone to blockage, treating it as a key aspect of property service. If the property company fails to properly manage, clear, and maintain the sewage and drainage pipes, causing losses to the owners, it should bear corresponding compensation responsibilities.

In this case, the external pipeline of the respondent's house was blocked, causing the kitchen pipeline to backflow, resulting in property damage. Since the blocked pipeline is an outdoor drainage pipe, which belongs to the shared pipeline of the owners and is part of the shared building, it should be managed, cleared, and maintained by the appellant, i.e., the property company. Currently, due to the property company's failure to fulfill the above obligations, it should bear compensation responsibility for the respondent's losses. The property company claims that it has fulfilled its management responsibility by clearing the community's drainage pipes once a year and does not bear compensation responsibility, but the evidence provided is insufficient to prove this claim. Therefore, the property company should bear corresponding compensation responsibility for the respondent's losses.

If the owners sharing the same sewage pipeline have engaged in improper use or cannot prove that they have not engaged in improper use, then these owners may need to bear tort liability for the property losses caused by the backflow due to pipeline blockage.

Article 1165 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" states: "If a person causes damage to another person's civil rights and interests due to fault, they shall bear tort liability." If the owners sharing the same sewage pipeline knowingly or should have known that certain items cannot be discharged into the sewage pipeline but still discharge waste, or have long-term improper use of the sewage pipeline, leading to blockage and backflow, then these owners need to bear corresponding responsibilities for the losses caused.

Furthermore, if it is impossible to determine which specific owner's improper use caused the blockage, but the owners cannot prove that they have not engaged in improper use, according to Article 1172 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China": "If two or more persons separately commit tortious acts causing the same damage, and the degree of responsibility can be determined, each shall bear corresponding responsibility; if it is difficult to determine the degree of responsibility, they shall bear responsibility equally." Therefore, in the case of public sewage pipeline blockage and backflow, if the owners sharing the pipeline have engaged in improper use or cannot prove their lack of fault, these owners may need to bear corresponding tort liability according to their degree of fault. The court, when hearing such cases, will comprehensively consider the evidence from all parties to determine the distribution of responsibility.

Reference case: (2020) Su 01 Min Zhong 8253.

Court opinion:"If two or more persons engage in acts that endanger the personal and property safety of others, and the actions of one or several persons cause damage to others, the specific tortfeasor shall bear responsibility; if the specific tortfeasor cannot be determined, the actors shall bear joint liability." Regarding the issue of tortious subjects caused by construction waste blocking the involved pipeline. Specifically in this case, the 12 owners above the damaged owner engaged in partial hard decoration of their balconies, and during the renovation process, activities such as mixing sand and mud and cleaning tools may lead to situations where cement, yellow sand, and other construction waste are dumped into the toilet or floor drain. The content recorded in the "Renovation Filing Form" alone cannot exclude the possibility of damage caused by the renovation actions of the 12 owners above. Since the specific tortfeasor cannot be determined, the actors who engaged in the relevant actions should bear joint liability, thus the 12 owners above should bear responsibility for the losses of the damaged owner.

According to Article 1173 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China": "If the victim has fault in the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, they may reduce the tortfeasor's liability." If the damaged owner also has fault in the public sewage pipeline blockage and backflow, leading to their property loss or expansion of loss, then they should reduce the responsibility of other tortfeasors.

For example, if the owner whose house was damaged did not use the sewage pipeline according to regulations, discharged non-degradable items into the pipeline, or failed to promptly notify the property company or take measures to prevent losses after learning that there might be a problem with the pipeline, or failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the expansion of losses after the damage occurred, etc. In such cases, the owner has fault, and the court will reduce the responsibility of other tortfeasors based on the degree of the owner's fault.

Of course, in practical operations, the degree of reduction of responsibility needs to be determined based on the specific circumstances of the case. Generally, the court will comprehensively consider the degree of fault of all parties, the causal relationship between actions and damage consequences, and other factors to reasonably allocate responsibility. If the owner's fault is the main reason for the occurrence or expansion of the damage, then the responsibility of other tortfeasors may be greatly reduced. Conversely, if the owner's fault is minor, the responsibility of other tortfeasors may not be reduced significantly.

Reference case: (2023) E 08 Min Zhong 277.

Court opinion:A certain property company, as the property service company for the community, has the obligation to clear and maintain the public sewage pipeline to ensure its smooth operation. Therefore, the property company should bear the main compensation responsibility for the property loss suffered by owner Wang due to inadequate management of public sewage facilities leading to the backflow incident. After receiving the house and renovating it, owner Wang, as the property rights holder, has management responsibilities. Generally, if backflow occurs, timely detection and measures can immediately resolve the issue without causing losses. Due to the special nature of the house renovation and furniture materials, the duration of water immersion significantly affects the expansion of damage. Since owner Wang had not lived in the house for a long time and it was discovered by others several days after the water immersion, owner Wang also bears certain responsibility for the expanded losses caused by the water immersion. Therefore, in this case, it is determined that the property company bears the main responsibility for owner Wang's losses, while owner Wang bears secondary responsibility.