The new renovation house is blocked by the general law of the case |

The new house has not yet been renovated,

But because of the blocking pipeline blocked

As a result, the bathroom returns water

The home was flooded.

To recover the loss,

The parties Ms. Chen will realize real estate companies,

Property company and 26 owners upstairs

Told to the court together.

近日，合肥中院对该案作出二审判决，认定物业公司对陈女士的损害后果承担30%的赔偿责任；因陈女士未能举证证明房地产公司及楼上业主对损害发生存在过错，房地产公司及The owners upstairs do not need to bear responsibility.

(Picture from the Internet)

The main pipeline of the community is blocked

The new decoration house is flooded

On June 10, 2018, Ms. Chen and a real estate company signed a "Commodity Housing Sale Contract" to purchase a house on the 5th floor of a community in Yaohai District, Hefei City. The house was accepted as a qualified project by relevant departments. After Ms. Chen obtained the house, she signed a "Preliminary Property Management Service Agreement" with a property company, stipulating that the property company provided property services to the house involved in the case. Later, Ms. Chen decorated the house involved and bought furniture such as wardrobes. On October 18, 2019, due to the blockage of the community's pipeline, the bathroom in the home was returned to the water, which caused the new house to be flooded. Ms. Chen called the police after discovery. Afterwards, the property company cleaned up and dredged the relevant water pipelines in a timely manner, and saw the sewage mission between the fourth floor and the fifth floor. From it, the condensate blocks, plastic bags and other blockage were taken out, and new sewage pipelines were reinstalled. Ms. Chen sued to the People's Court of Yaohai District, Hefei, and asked the real estate company, property company and owners upstairs to compensate her property loss, rental losses, and appraisal fees for more than 177,000 yuan.

First instance court judgment

After trial, the court of first instance believed that the sewage pipelined pipelined pipelines involved in the case was the main pipeline. The property company had faults in property services and should bear 30%of the liability for compensation. The sewage supervisor was sawn and pulled out the blockage. The real estate company was more likely to leave when building the house. Therefore, the real estate company bear 30%of the liability for compensation. The owners who decorate or use the house on the 5th floor to the 34th floor may cause the result of the damage. Corresponding to Ms. Chen’s property losses, they are liable for compensation. The ladies and other 17 households have a burden of 4249.81 yuan each. Property companies, real estate companies and 17 households did not accept the first trial judgment and appealed.

Court of Second instance court judgment

After the trial of the second instance of Hefei Intermediate People's Court, I thought:

The focus of the dispute in this case is concentrated in whether the losses of the sewage pipes in Ms. Chen's home in the house of Ms. Chen's home in the house of Ms. Chen's home are liable.

Although Ms. Chen believes that there is a possibility of discarding and leaving foreign bodies in the real estate company and the owners upstairs, but it is not clear about who implemented the above behavior. Ms. Chen failed to provide evidence to prove that real estate companies and upstairs owners have implemented infringement. They cannot predetermine the "possibility" of the implementation behavior as "certainty", and predetermine the real estate company and upstairs owners have failed the damage and ordered the order. It is responsible for infringement, so the principle of fault liability in this case. The case involved in the pollution and staining pipelines. Except for special circumstances, the blockage of the pipeline is gradually formed. Before the sewage overflows, abnormal phenomena such as poor launch will occur. At this time, if it is found and dealt with in time, it will generally not cause serious losses. Because the sewage riser is laid in the owner's house, once a house is overflowing with sewage due to the blockage of the pipeline, it is difficult for outsiders to find abnormalities in the first time. In this case, Ms. Chen, as the owner, has a prudent management and maintenance obligation to her real estate, and should pay positive attention to whether the water pipeline in the home and the normally use. However, when the sewage overflowing outdoors on the day of the start was discovered by the property administrator, the house involved in the case should have been seen and used for a long period of time. Ms. Chen had obvious faults on the continuous expansion of losses. And from the position of the case -related pipeline blockage between the 4th floor and the fifth floor, it is difficult to rule out the possibility of Ms. Chen's own improper use.

As a property service company, the property company has the obligation to manage and maintain public facilities and equipment in the community. After discovering abnormalities, the property company has contacted Ms. Chen in time, and afterwards, effective measures have been taken to clear the pipeline. Later, Ms. Chen's house had no repeated pipeline blocking and returning to the water. The above -mentioned maintenance measures taken by the property company should be timely effective. However, considering that the building involved in the case is up to 30 high -rise housing, the property company should notice the characteristics of the number of residents and the complexity of the internal facilities, and the community is in the new delivery stage. Similar incidents, especially in the community, have previously occurred in the sewage overflow that causes severe damage to the owner's house. The property company should strengthen prevention in the prevention work of reminding the alert and inspection and rectification. Two -pronged approach should be matched with later treatment. In addition, the property company directly replaced the sewage riser downstairs after the incident. It did not effectively record the on -site cleanup process and the items that was cleaned up. As a result, it was impossible Objectively, it has some difficulties in defending the owners of the owners.

Therefore, the court believes that the property company is still lacking in risk prevention and post -event disposal, thereby determining that the property company's damage to Ms. Chen is liable for 30%of the consequences of the damage.Other litigation requests.Source: People's Court Newspaper

- END -