Heavy rain flooded the underground garage, a landlord in Guangzhou claimed! The court ruled

The garage was flooded and the owner suffered huge losses. Under the heavy rainstorm, who should pay for the loss? Recently, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court rendered a final judgment on the case.

Heavy rain caused the vehicle to soak in water

According to reports, the property rights of the parking space of the underground parking garage in an east community are registered in the name of company A, and the parking garage is actually maintained by a property company.

Zhu Mou, the owner of the community, paid a monthly parking fee of 400 yuan to a property company involved in the case, and the two parties did not sign a vehicle custody contract. The property hangs the "Regulations on the Management of Parking Spaces" at the entrance of the underground parking garage, of which Article 6 states: This parking lot only provides parking space use services, and does not assume the responsibility for the custody, loss, damage and other responsibilities of the vehicle and the accompanying items, if you have objections to this regulation, please leave the parking lot.

In 2020, the "5•22" exceptionally heavy rain triggered the backfilling of the river, causing the underground parking garage of the community to be flooded. Later, the relevant departments pointed out in the briefing on the rainstorm that the intensity and scope of the hourly rain during the rainstorm exceeded the historical record. According to statistics, there are a total of 75 water-impregnated vehicles in the parking garage of the community. Zhu believed that his vehicle was soaked in water and scrapped, causing his losses, and a property company and company A should compensate him, so he filed a lawsuit in this case.

The court dismissed the owner's claim

The Huangpu District Court of First Instance held that because the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm constituted force majeure, it did not support Zhu's request for property damage caused by the damage to a property company. The subject of the legal relationship in this case is Zhu and a property company, and Company A is not the counterpart of the property service relationship and the venue lease relationship, and the claim that Company A bears the liability for compensation has no legal basis and is not supported. The judgment rejected all of Zhu's litigation claims.

Zhu was not satisfied and filed an appeal. Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court Second Instance Judgment: The appeal is rejected and the original judgment is upheld.

Reason for trial

Whether the 5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm constitutes force majeure.

Force majeure refers to objective circumstances that cannot be foreseen, avoided and overcome. For the unforeseen. First of all, the regional automatic weather station near the community recorded a cumulative rainfall of 290.6 mm on the day of the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm, far exceeding the highest precipitation recorded in the region in More than ten years in May, reaching the level of exceptionally heavy rainfall.

Secondly, the "5.22" super heavy rainstorm occurred in the early morning, when the lights were sparse and dim and the personnel were tired and sleeping, which also reduced the possibility of foresight to a certain extent.

Third, the underground parking garage in the community has never had a similar flooding accident since its completion in 2005, and this rainstorm is not something that a property company can easily judge and foresee based on service experience; although Zhu insisted at the trial that the rainstorm was predictable, he himself did not take any preventive measures, and the reason is that he also said that the garage has never been flooded since its completion, which is unexpected and cannot be forced. Therefore, the court found that the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm was unforeseeable for a property company.

For the unavoidable and insurmountable. In the process of this rainfall, the underground parking garage of the community was affected by the surrounding terrain environment, and the river water rose rapidly, together with the road water poured into the underground parking garage, the situation far exceeded the normal capacity of the garage drainage facilities, directly causing the garage to be flooded in a short period of time. In fact, the monitoring machine room of the police station not far away has also been flooded, the monitoring equipment and lines are damaged, and the police station, as the dispatch agency of the public security organ, its information channels, personnel allocation and material preparation are better than those of a property company, but in the face of the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm fashionable and difficult to avoid flooding, it is determined that the rainstorm is unavoidable and insurmountable for a property company.

Based on the above factors, the rainfall of the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm has indeed exceeded the foreseeable scope and drainage capacity of a property company, and it is an objective situation that cannot be foreseen, avoided, or overcome, and should be determined as force majeure.

Should a property company or company A compensate Zhu for losses?

The underground garage parking fee paid by Zhu to a property company is 400 yuan per month, which is not a high standard, and it may also include most of the site rental costs, and the remaining costs for property management must be less.

According to the principle of consistency of rights and obligations, it is not appropriate to pay too much attention to and manage a property company. Since the accumulated rainfall in the process of heavy precipitation exceeded the historical extremes of the district, a property company, as an ordinary property management operator, failed to correctly foresee the rainfall and intensity of the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm, which is reasonable.

In this vehicle flooding incident, the security personnel of a property company almost all went out, actively took a series of measures such as setting up sandbags at the entrances and exits to block rainwater, issuing emergency removal notices to the owners to avoid vehicle losses, and later purchased pumps and contacted relevant departments for flood drainage and rescue. A property company has fulfilled the necessary duty of reminder and care, and has made great efforts to mitigate the occurrence of damage results, and has fulfilled its property service obligations stipulated in the "Preliminary Property Management Service Contract" and its relevant obligations in the site lease relationship.

In summary, considering the impact of the force majeure of the "5.22" exceptionally heavy rainstorm, in the case that Zhu has insured the motor vehicle loss insurance for the vehicle involved in the case by the insurance company, Zhu asked a property company to bear other property losses caused by the damage to the vehicle, which is not supported.

The judge pointed out that if the owner parks the vehicle in the parking lot managed by the property service company, if the owner's vehicle is damaged due to extreme weather, in the case that the property company has made an estimated prevention of the extreme weather and taken various measures to reduce the occurrence of the damage result, it can be determined that it has fulfilled the necessary duty of reminder and safety precautions, and the property company can claim to be exempt from liability for the property loss of the owner due to the extreme weather being determined as force majeure. The legal proverb has a cloud: "The law is not difficult for others", so in this case, it is not advisable to be too harsh on the property service company, otherwise it will be unfair.

Xiaoxiang Morning News Comprehensive Information Times

Source: Xiaoxiang Morning Post