This is a dispute case about property damage.
The case is relatively simple, that is, a unit of seven households, the first floor is a commercial store, because the sewer is blocked by foreign objects, resulting in the first floor store building was flooded and damaged.
In the end, the court ruled that the property and the other owners were 50% respectively.
Although the first-floor store felt that the amount of compensation was too small, the court held that it could not prove most of the losses, so it could only award it.
This case learned:
First, for community owners, especially upstairs owners, do not discard easily blocked items in the sewers, such as socks, otherwise the final loss is yourself.
Second, the property company should deal with this kind of sewer blockage case in time, and cannot let small things become big things, if it is handled properly at that time and finds the root of the problem, it will not cause such a big loss.
Third, for the store on the first floor, since the loss was caused, it should quickly apply to the court to fix the evidence, so that the evidence can be completed as much as possible and the loss can be reduced, instead of being speechless and suffering a dumb loss when it comes to the court.
Attached: Urumqi Midong District Happy Jade Store, Urumqi Huaxin Ju'an Property Service Co., Ltd. and other property damage compensation disputes civil second-instance civil judgment
Urumqi Intermediate People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
Civil Judgment
(2022) New 01 Min Zhong No. 3163
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Happy Jade Store, Midong District, Urumqi City, domiciled at No. 231, Huatai Street, Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Operator: Li Fang, female, born on December 8, 1970, lives in Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Entrusted litigation agent: Wei Gongqin, legal worker of Aimin Legal Service Institute in Midong District, Urumqi.
Appellant (original trial defendant): Urumqi Huaxin Ju'an Property Service Co., Ltd., domiciled in No. 9 Comprehensive Office Building, Tomorrow Town, No. 231, Huatai Street, Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Legal representative: Tan Ling, general manager of the company.
Entrusted litigation agent: Yang Kai, lawyer of Xinjiang Song Nan Law Firm.
Appellee (original trial defendant): Liu Junming, male, born on July 22, 1966, no fixed occupation, living in Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Appellee (original trial defendant): Wang Chuanjun, male, born on July 11, 1975, no fixed occupation, living in Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Appellee (original trial defendant): Li Yongfu, male, born on April 6, 1983, an employee of Xinjiang Branch of National Energy Group Co., Ltd., lives in Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
Appellee (original trial defendant): Ma Jinfu, male, born on February 19, 1971, no fixed occupation, living in Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.
The appellant, Happy Jade Store (hereinafter referred to as Happy Jade Store), Urumqi Midong District (hereinafter referred to as Happy Jade Store), appealed to this court against the civil judgment of the People's Court of Urumqi City Midong District (2021) New 0109 Minchu No. 4722 with the appellant Urumqi Huaxin Ju'an Property Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company) and the appellees Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu and Ma Jinfu.
After the case was filed on December 12, 2022, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a hearing.
Wei Gongqin, the appointed litigation agent of the appellant Happy Jade Store, Yang Kai, the entrusted litigation agent of the appellant Huaxin Ju'an Property Company, and Ma Jinfu, the appellee, attended the court to participate in the lawsuit.
The appellees Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun and Li Yongfu refused to appear in court to participate in the lawsuit after being summoned by summons. The case has now been concluded.
Happy Jade Shop Appeal Request:
Items 1 to 6 of the first-instance civil judgment were revised according to law, and Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company were ordered to compensate our store for various losses totaling 73,803.11 yuan.
Facts and Grounds:
The first-instance judgment determined that the cost of house repair and business losses were too low.
The first bathroom leakage and water seepage occurred on October 19, 2020, after the incident, our store notified the property company and the upstairs owner, because the negotiation was fruitless, our store sued the court of first instance, because Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu, Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company did not cooperate with the service and other reasons, the case was only evaluated in May 2022 after being entrusted by the court of first instance.
In order to avoid the expansion of losses, and at the same time neglect of legal common sense, our store repaired the house, the actual cost of decoration cost of 48,000 yuan (the scope of decoration includes the whole house circuit, lamps, damaged parts of the roof, wall painting, roof grid fence decoration and damaged part cabinet removal and redecoration), resulting in the appraisal agency can not assess the repair cost, but the fact of water leakage is real, and it has occurred four times in succession, up to one and a half years, if my store does not carry out decoration, retaining the status quo for one and a half years will cause greater losses.
The first-instance judgment determined that the cost of house repair was $3,000, which was far from the actual loss, so the cost of house repair was adjusted to $20,000 in this appeal.
The same is true of our store's business losses, four leaks and water seeps are all dirt in the bathroom, and every time there is water leakage and water seepage, our store must clean up the business premises, and must also ensure a reasonable period of dispersion of peculiar odors, and business losses will undoubtedly occur during the closure period.
The business loss should be inferred based on the annual revenue, and the first instance judgment determined the operating loss of 10,000 yuan, which is obviously inconsistent with the facts.
In summary, I request the court of second instance to ascertain the facts in accordance with the law, make a fair judgment, and support our store's appeal request.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's appeal against Happy Jade Shop argued that our company was not at fault in this case and should not bear the loss of Happy Jade Store.
None of Happy Jade Store's appeal claims were supported by any evidence, and none of them were upheld, and the court of second instance was requested to dismiss all of Happy Jade Store's appeal requests.
Ma Jinfu argued against Happy Jade Store's appeal that I do not agree with Happy Jade Store's appeal request. I was not notified when the happy jade shop was renovated. Our house is dredged every year, and so far we have dredged the drain 7 times, and each time the drainage is completed, it is notified in the owner's group.
The sewers are used by everyone, and no one in my house has anyone during the day, let alone throw towels and socks into the sewers.
Hua Hin Juan Property Company Appeal Request:
Revoke the first item of the first-instance judgment in accordance with the law, remand the case for retrial, or revise the judgment according to law to dismiss the lawsuit of Kaixin Jade Store requesting our company to compensate for losses.
Facts and Grounds:
The owner's sewer pipe belongs to the exclusive part of the owner, not the public main pipeline, and the maintenance and repair of this part is borne by the owner himself and is not within the scope of our company's services. And our company entrusts a third party to carry out regular maintenance and maintenance of the main pipeline every year.
The complaint of Happy Jade Store stated that its house was flooded because the upstairs owner used tap water improperly and caused the sewer pipe to block, and the upstairs owner should bear the liability for compensation, and had nothing to do with our company, and our company should not bear the house damage fee of Happy Jade Store.
In summary, I request the court of second instance to make a fair judgment in accordance with the law and support our company's appeal request.
Happy Jade argued against Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's appeal that Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's appeal request could not be sustained.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company claims that the blocked pipeline is not a public pipeline, it is not the scope of maintenance and repair by the property company, and the statement that it is not responsible cannot be established, the pipeline is a common facility of the owner, the property company collects the property fee, and should carry out daily repair and maintenance of the common facilities in the community.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company claimed that it had carried out dredging, but Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company did not dredging when it needed to dredge several times within a year and a half, so it should bear responsibility for this case and request the court of second instance to reject Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's appeal request.
Ma Jinfu said in response to Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's appeal that during the leak, the property company repeatedly said that it would repair the drain, but did not carry out repairs. We pay the property fee every year, but the property company did not manage the leakage of Building 8 for half a month, and we looked for the property company many times.
I think the leakage is the responsibility of the property company, because the property company has not dealt with it, resulting in frequent blockage of the sewer, this year each dredging drainage costs more than 200 yuan, if the property company will dredge the sewer well, it is impossible to dredge it multiple times a year.
Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun and Li Yongfu did not appear in court and did not submit written arguments and statements against the appeals of Happy Jade Store and Hua Hin Juan Property Company.
Happy Jade Store filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance to request:
ordered Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu, and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company to eliminate the obstruction of water leakage in the house of Happy Jade Store;
Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company were ordered to compensate Happy Jade Store for the loss of 48,000 yuan;
Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company were ordered to compensate Happy Jade Store for the rent of RMB 6,667;
Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company were ordered to compensate Happy Jade Store for self-employed losses of RMB47,136.11.
The court of first instance found the facts:
Happy Jade Shop is located in the ××× room of Unit ×××, Building ×××, Midong District, Urumqi City (hereinafter referred to as the house involved), and Li Fang is the operator of the jade shop.
Liu Junming is a ×××-room resident of the unit, Wang Chuanjun is a ×××-room resident of the unit, an outsider Wang Jie is a ×××-room household, Li Yongfu is a ××× household, and Ma Jinfu is a ×××-room household.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company is responsible for the property management of the community where the house involved is located.
On October 19, 2020, the happy jade shop was informed by neighbors that there was a water leak in the house involved.
On 23 October 2020, Hua Hin Juan Property Company registered a water leakage in the house involved, which was caused by the blockage of the main drainage pipe of the toilet of the unit, resulting in the flooding of the ××× house. This led to water seepage, leakage, damage and flooding of the houses involved.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company stated in the first-instance trial, then closed the water valve and found a dredging company to dredge.
Pipe blockages are some daily necessities and other dirt.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company presented the contract for dredging the main pipeline in the first-instance trial, intending to confirm that from 2018 to the end of 2021, its company and the regular dredging company had a contract to regularly dredge and maintain the main pipeline and the facilities and equipment of the public site.
After cross-examination, Happy Jade Shop, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, and Ma Jinfu did not recognize this.
Upon review, the court of first instance held that the above-mentioned contract did not clearly stipulate the number and cycle of dredging each year, as well as the specific degree of dredging, which could not directly reflect the length of the "regular dredging" stated by the property company. And the dredging after the blockage was not sufficient to confirm that the company had completed its audit, maintenance and management responsibilities.
Therefore, the court of first instance confirmed the authenticity of this group of evidence, but did not confirm the validity and relevance.
During October 2020, Happy Jade Shop signed a "Renovation Contract" with Ma Wei, an outsider in the case, agreeing to renovate the house involved at a price of RMB 48,000.
On November 25, 2020, Ma Wei issued a receipt to Happy Jade Store, stating that he had received a renovation fee of 48,000 yuan.
During the trial of the first instance, Happy Jade Store applied for an appraisal of the decoration and repair costs of the houses involved in the case, and the court of first instance entrusted Zhongshenghua Asset Appraisal Co., Ltd. to appraise the decoration and repair costs of the houses involved in the case in accordance with the law.
The appraisal agency's opinion was that the house in question had been repaired in 2018, when the renovation materials had been discarded and it was impossible to verify the repair process at that time.
After on-site investigation, the house still has water leakage, part of the roof is blistered, and subsequent decoration and water and electricity renovation are required, and the amount of work cannot be determined and cannot be evaluated. The appraisal was eventually withdrawn.
During the first-instance trial, Happy Jade Store applied for an assessment of the operating losses of the houses involved from October 23, 2020 to November 23, 2020, and the court of first instance entrusted Xinjiang Hongchang Tianyuan Co., Ltd. to assess the operating losses of the aforementioned period after the houses involved were flooded.
The assessment body's assessment is:
Happy Jade Store failed to provide the operating costs in 2020, and only provided the annual bill of WeChat revenue in 2020 of 246,846.56 yuan, which could not be calculated due to incomplete information.
Happy Jade offers manual bookkeeping, reflecting revenue between April 2021 and November 2021.
Happy Jade Store said that WeChat is its work WeChat, and there is no personal income other than the store.
The agency did not count other unrelated flows other than the operating income of jade shops at the time of statistics.
The annual rent of the shop is $80,000.
The appraisal conclusion is that from March 2021 to March 2022, the average monthly net profit of Happy Jade Store was 47,136.11 yuan.
From 23 October 2020 to 23 November 2021, the amount of fixed expenses lost due to water leakage was $7,745.77, of which rent was $6,666.67 and heating was $1,079.10.
Regarding the appraisal fee paid by Happy Jade Shop, during the first-instance trial, Happy Jade Store presented one WeChat chat record and bank transfer voucher to prove that Happy Jade Shop transferred RMB 10,000 to the accounting firm, resulting in an appraisal fee of RMB 10,000.
After the first-instance trial, Happy Jade Store submitted one invoice issued by Xinjiang Hongchang Tianyuan Co., Ltd., with a total price and tax of 10,000 yuan, which was confirmed by the court of first instance.
During the sewage leakage incident in the house in question, a total of 6 households were occupied in the unit where the house in question was located.
They include Happy Jade Shop (rented, 1 household), outsider Wang Jie (1 household), and Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, and Ma Jinfu.
Happy Jade Store initially sued Wang Jie in this case, and later withdrew its lawsuit against Wang Jie for some reason.
After the sewage leakage occurred in the house involved, the parties failed to negotiate compensation for the loss, and Happy Jade Shop sued the court of first instance.
All parties stated in the first-instance trial that the unit where the house in question was located had multiple pipe blockages, and several sewer pipe blockages occurred from the winter of 2021 to March 2022, which was confirmed by the court of first instance.
The court of first instance held that, according to Article 1 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Time Effect of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the provisions of the Civil Code shall apply to civil dispute cases arising from legal facts after the implementation of the Civil Code. In civil dispute cases arising from legal facts before the Civil Code came into effect, the provisions of the laws and judicial interpretations at that time shall apply, unless otherwise provided by laws and judicial interpretations.
The provisions of the Civil Code shall apply to civil dispute cases arising from such legal facts until after the implementation of the Civil Code, unless otherwise provided by laws and judicial interpretations.
In this case, the leakage of sewage from the house involved occurred in October 2020, and the laws and judicial interpretations at that time should apply before the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China came into force.
According to Article 6 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, the perpetrator shall bear tort liability for infringing on the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault. If the perpetrator is presumed to be at fault according to the law, and the actor cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability.
Article 10 stipulates that if two or more persons commit an act that endangers the personal or property safety of others, and the conduct of one or more of them causes damage to others, and the specific infringer can be identified, the infringer shall bear the responsibility; Where the specific infringer cannot be identified, the perpetrator shall bear joint and several liability.
Article 14 stipulates that the jointly and severally liable persons shall determine the corresponding amount of compensation according to the degree of their respective liabilities; Where it is difficult to determine the extent of liability, liability shall be borne equally.
According to the facts ascertained in this case, the reason for the sewage leakage and flooding of the house involved was that the main drainage and sewer pipe of the unit was blocked by some daily necessities.
Regarding whether the losses claimed by Happy Jade Store are established and the amount.
In this case, Happy Jade claimed three losses,
The first loss was $48,000 for the loss of the house,
Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company were not recognized.
After reviewing the available evidence, the court of first instance held that the damage to the house involved was flooded in October 2020 and several times since then, which will inevitably result in a loss of renovation and repair costs.
However, when the damage in this case occurred, the epidemic situation in the city had passed, and the operator of Happy Jade Store should be able to discover the fact that the house involved in the case was flooded in time, and report it to Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company in a timely manner to minimize the loss of the house being flooded.
In this case, the Happy Jade Store found that the house leaked and seeped on October 19, 2020, and the time of registration of Hua Hin Juan Property Company was shown as October 23, 2020.
Happy Jade Store claimed that it had reported to Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company at the first time, but failed to provide evidence, and Hua Hin Juan Property Company did not recognize it, and Happy Jade Store should bear the adverse consequences of failing to provide evidence.
For the renovation and repair costs in this case, referring to the renovation and repair costs incurred after flooding houses of similar sizes in the same court case, the price of local decoration labor and building materials, whether the Happy Jade Store did not reflect in a timely manner, the flooding of the house in October 2020, the subsequent blockage of the sewer pipe in the unit where the house involved was located caused by water leakage, and the saving of litigation costs of the parties, the court of first instance imposed on the renovation and repair costs of the house involved due to flooding. $3,000 as appropriate.
The second loss was RMB6,667 for the rent of the house, which was not recognized by Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company.
After reviewing the available evidence, the court of first instance held that the house involved in the case was flooded with water and there were many leaks, and objectively there should be a reasonable time to report the fact of water leakage to the property company, clean the house after the water seepage and leakage stop, and carry out renovation and repair.
The court of first instance upheld Happy Jade Store's claim of a loss of RMB6,667.
The third loss claimed by Happy Jade Store was a self-employed loss of RMB47,136.11, which was not recognized by Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company.
After reviewing the available evidence in the case, the court of first instance held that Happy Jade Store applied for an assessment of the operating losses of the houses involved from October 23, 2020 to November 23, 2020, and the appraisal conclusion of Xinjiang Hongchang Tianyuan Co., Ltd. was that from March 2021 to March 2022, the average monthly net profit of Happy Jade Store was 47,136.11 yuan.
There is a 4-month time difference between this period and the appraisal period actually commissioned by Happy Jade Store, and the reason why the 2020 operating loss cannot be identified is that Happy Jade Store cannot provide the operating costs in 2020, and only provides the annual bill of 2020 WeChat revenue of 246,846.56 yuan, which cannot be calculated due to incomplete information. Considering that from October 23, 2020 to November 23 of the same year, the second epidemic in the city has just ended for more than one month, which will inevitably have a greater impact on the production and operation of various industries.
Ma Jinfu, Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company, etc. argued that the happy jade store was not open during this period, but failed to provide corresponding counter-evidence, and the court of first instance rejected it.
As for the business loss claimed by Happy Jade Store, due to the multiple pipe blockages in the unit where the house involved was located, the damage to the house involved was true, and the loss of Happy Jade Store, taking into account the impact of the epidemic, the profitability of Happy Jade Store during the period of basic stability after the end of the epidemic, and other comprehensive factors, the court of first instance determined that it was RMB 10,000.
The above, the amount of losses claimed by Happy Jade Store was upheld by the court of first instance totaling RMB19,667.
On the question of whether Hua Hin Juan Property Company is liable in this case.
The court of first instance held that Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company, as a property service enterprise, was obliged to carry out routine maintenance and maintenance of the common facilities and equipment in the community. Although Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company argued that it had fulfilled its relevant obligations and regularly maintained the common facilities in the residential area where the house in question was located every year, the dredging contract submitted by Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company was not sufficient to substantiate its defense, and its company's defense opinion lacked factual basis, and the court of first instance rejected it.
According to the facts ascertained, the main drainage pipe of the unit involved in the case was blocked many times, and the residents repeatedly reported the problem, and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company only paid attention to the dredging after the incident on the grounds of signing a contract with the dredging company, but could not effectively find the cause and carry out system maintenance and repair, resulting in frequent incidents of blocked sewer pipes in the unit where the house involved was located, and could not take timely measures to reduce the loss of the house involved in being flooded.
Therefore, Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company should bear the corresponding compensation for the damage results in this case.
Based on the existing evidence and ascertained facts in this case, the court of first instance appropriately confirmed that Hua Hin Juan Property Company was liable for 50% of the compensation of 9,833.50 yuan in this case.
Regarding the liability of Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu and Ma Jinfu, Happy Jade Shop withdrew its lawsuit against Wang Jie, an outsider in the case, and regarded it as a waiver of the claim to this part of the share in this case.
The property company registered a total of 5 households upstairs of the Happy Jade store, and the five households could not identify the specific infringer and it was difficult to determine the extent of liability, and each household should bear the remaining 50% of the liability equally, that is, each household should bear 1,966.70 yuan (9,833.50 yuan ÷ 5 households), so Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu and Ma Jinfu each bore 1,966.70 yuan in this case.
With regard to the claim of Happy Jade Store requesting Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu, Ma Jinfu and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company to exclude the obstruction of the water leakage of the house involved in the case, the court of first instance examined that there was no water leakage in the house involved in the case for the time being, and the court of first instance did not support the claim of Happy Jade Store.
Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's argument that its company had fulfilled its maintenance and repair obligations and should not bear the liability for compensation in this case was not substantiated by evidence, and the court of first instance rejected it.
The court of first instance rejected Liu Junming, Wang Chuanjun, Li Yongfu and Ma Jinfu arguing that they should not bear the liability in this case.
Liu Junming's refusal to attend the second trial without justifiable reasons after being summoned by the court is deemed to have waived his procedural rights such as presenting, cross-examining and arguing in the first instance.
Verdict:
Hua Hin Juan Property Company paid Happy Jade Store a house damage fee of $9,833.50 within five days after the judgment came into effect;
Liu Junming paid Happy Jade Shop a loss fee of $1,966.70 within five days after the judgment came into effect;
Wang Chuanjun paid Happy Jade Shop RMB1,966.70 for the loss of housing within five days after the judgment came into effect;
Li Yongfu paid Happy Jade Shop $1,966.70 for the loss of housing within five days after the judgment came into effect;
Ma Jinfu paid Happy Jade Shop RMB1,966.70 for the loss of housing within five days after the judgment came into effect;
Happy Jade Shop's other claims were dismissed.
In the second instance, the parties did not submit new evidence.
The second instance also found that a total of 7 households were occupied in the unit where the house involved was located. In addition to the above facts, this court confirms the other facts established in the first examination.
The court held that paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Time Effect of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "In civil dispute cases arising from legal facts before the Civil Code came into effect, the provisions of the laws and judicial interpretations at that time shall apply, unless otherwise provided by laws and judicial interpretations."
The water leakage incident occurred before the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China came into effect, so the provisions of the laws and judicial interpretations at that time should be applied in this case.
The focus of the dispute in this case was whether there was a factual and legal basis for Happy Jade Store's claim that Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company should bear the liability for damages caused by the water leakage involved in the case, and if so, how the amount of compensation should be determined.
In this regard, our analysis is as follows:
According to Article 122 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, "if the personal and property rights and interests of the other party are infringed due to the breach of contract of one of the parties, the injured party has the right to choose to require it to bear the liability for breach of contract in accordance with this Law or to require it to bear tort liability in accordance with other laws" and Article 6.1 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, "the perpetrator shall bear tort liability for infringing on the civil rights and interests of others due to his fault", in this case, there was a property service contract relationship between Happy Jade Store and Hua Hin Ju'an Property CompanyThe reason why Happy Jade Store requested Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company to bear the liability for compensation was that Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company did not fulfill its responsibility to maintain and maintain the public part, so there was a situation where the liability for breach of contract and tort liability competed in this case, and now Happy Jade Store requires Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company to jointly bear the tort damage liability with other infringers, which complies with the above legal provisions.
At present, Hua Hin Juan Property Company believes that the blocked pipeline is not within its management scope and it has fulfilled its daily maintenance obligations, and this court believes that the blocked pipeline is a drainage pipe shared by the owner and falls within the scope of Hua Hin Juan Property Company that should repair, maintain and manage.
The main drainage pipe of the unit involved in the case was blocked many times, and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company only dredged the pipeline after the blockage occurred, failed to effectively find the root cause of the blockage, and failed to fulfill its obligation to repair and maintain the main drainage pipeline.
In addition, the owners of the upstairs of the Happy Jade Store failed to fulfill their duty of due diligence when they jointly used drainage pipes to discharge domestic sewage, resulting in the water leakage in this case, so Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company and the owners of the upper floor of the Happy Jade Store should be liable for damages.
The court of first instance held that Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company bore 50% of the liability for compensation and this court upheld it.
This court rejects Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company's appeal opinion that it should not be liable for compensation.
With regard to the amount of compensation for damages. In this regard, the court held that because Happy Jade Store renovated the house involved in the case on its own after the water leakage incident, the appraisal agency could not determine the cost of renovation and repair, Happy Jade Store only provided the decoration contract signed with the outsider and could not confirm the actual decoration and repair costs, and Happy Jade Store could not provide the operating cost data of the year of the leakage, that is, 2020, the court of first instance combined with the damage to the decoration in the store, Due to factors such as the operation of the store and the epidemic, the discretionary loss of $3,000 and the loss of operation of $10,000 were not improper, and the hospital upheld them.
This Court also rejects the appeal opinion of Happy Jade Shop.
In summary, the appeal claims of Happy Jade Store and Hua Hin Juan Property Company cannot be upheld and should be rejected; The first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear and the law was correctly applied, and should be upheld. In accordance with Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
The appeal was dismissed and the judgment affirmed.
The second-instance case acceptance fee was RMB1,203.40 (Happy Jade Store had paid RMB1,153.40 in advance and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company had paid RMB50.00), Happy Jade Shop paid RMB1,153.40 and Hua Hin Ju'an Property Company RMB50.00.
This judgment is final.
Presiding Judge Pang Yan
Judge Gao Qian
Judge Jiao Yu
May 29, 2023
Clerk Xie Xiaoxiao