Who should be liable for compensation if the glass of a high-rise building falls and smashes a new car?

Lufa case [2024] 201

A private car that is less than a year old when newly bought

During parking in the above-ground parking lot

Accidentally hit by falling glass from the glass curtain wall of the building

Resulting in damage to the vehicle

Who bears the responsibility?

Brief facts of the case

Plaintiff Zhang parked his own minibus in the above-ground parking lot of a building in Zhifu District, Yantai City, with other people's vehicles on the left and right sides, and there were no no-parking signs or road cones around it. The glass on the outside of an underhung window on the second floor above the building fell down, causing damage to Zhang's vehicle.

After the police arrived at the scene, they found the owner of the house on the second floor of a building, company A, the company that leased the house, and the property company that maintained and managed the house. Zhang failed to negotiate compensation with the person in charge of the three parties, so he could only pay for the maintenance of the vehicle and pay more than 20,000 yuan for maintenance. At the time of the damage, it was only 9 months after Zhang's purchase of the new car, and the infringement caused the value of Zhang's new car to depreciate significantly. Later, Zhang sued the court, demanding that the defendant pay the plaintiff more than 40,000 yuan in vehicle maintenance fees, appraisal fees, and vehicle depreciation losses.

Heard by the courts

There are two points of dispute in this case: one is the distinction between exterior walls and windows, and the other is how to analyze and determine the liability when the plaintiff sues the owner, manager and user of the house at the same time.

The defendant Company A argued that the plaintiff should provide evidence to prove that the source of the falling wall skin was caused by the falling exterior wall of the building, otherwise the plaintiff had no right to claim rights against the defendant. Secondly, the owner of the building was not Company A, and the plaintiff should add all the owners of the building involved as co-defendants.

The defendant property management company argued that it required the plaintiff to clarify which piece of glass it was, and according to the property management company's understanding, it was not the glass curtain wall affixed to the exterior wall for decoration that fell and hit the plaintiff's vehicle, but the glass on the window that the defendant B company could open arbitrarily when it was in use.

Defendant Company B argued that the glass on the exterior wall belonged to the public area and had nothing to do with the defendant Company B as the user. The entire exterior wall of the building was made of the same glass, and the glass that fell and hit the plaintiff's vehicle was the glass of the exterior wall, not the glass in the window being used by the defendant Company B, and according to the law, the tort liability for the destruction of the exterior wall belonged to the owner and not to the lessee.

If the court finds that the building, structure or other facilities and their shelving or hanging objects fall off or fall and cause damage to others, and the owner, manager or user cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability. In this case, when the vehicle involved in the case was parked in front of the building, the fact that the glass of the building fell and smashed the vehicle, causing damage to the vehicle, was clear, and the court confirmed it. Therefore, the focus of this case is the liability of the parties.

The wall of the building involved in the case was all decorated with glass curtain wall on the façade, and the outside of the windows of the house was also affixed with glass of the same material as the glass curtain wall, and the house where the window was located was owned by the defendant Company A and leased to the defendant Company B for use, and the window was in normal use when the glass on the outside of the window fell, and had functions such as ventilation and lighting, so the window should not be interpreted as a part of the external wall of the whole building because the glass of the same material was pasted on the outside.

The court did not accept the argument of the defendant Company A that the outer glass curtain wall was shared by all the owners and that all the owners and users should be listed as co-defendants in this case. Defendant Company A, as the owner of the house involved in the case, failed to take timely, adequate and effective protective and maintenance measures for the house involved in the case, and should be liable for compensation for the plaintiff's economic losses.

The court did not accept the defendant's claim that the use of the plaintiff company B was the direct cause of the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant company B, as the user, was not at fault, and the defendant property management company, as a property management service company, allowed or acquiesced in the parking of the vehicle even though it knew that there were dangerous factors at the site, and should also be liable for compensation for the losses suffered by the vehicle involved in the case.

Based on the fault of the two defendants, the court held that it was appropriate for the defendant Company A to bear 70% of the liability and the defendant property company to bear 30% of the liability. As for the plaintiff's claim for loss from vehicle depreciation, the court did not support it because no evidence was submitted and none of the three defendants recognized it. In the end, the court ordered that the economic loss caused by the plaintiff due to the accident was more than 26,000 yuan for vehicle maintenance, of which the defendant company A should bear 70% and the defendant property company should bear 30%. After the first-instance judgment of the case came into effect, the defendant had fulfilled the task of compensation.

What the judge said

According to the relevant provisions of Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over the Differentiated Ownership of Buildings, the land within the building zoning shall be jointly enjoyed by the owners in accordance with the law, except for the planned land occupied by the entire building or the land occupied by urban public roads and green spaces that belong to the exclusive property of the owner.

In this case, it is the distinction between exterior walls and windows. The exterior wall belongs to the natural common part, that is, there is no provision in the law, there is no agreement in the contract, and it generally does not have the registration conditions, but it naturally belongs to the common part from its attributes, including the basic structure of the building, the public passage part, the public facilities and equipment part and the public space.

In this case, the wall of the building was all decorated with glass curtain wall on the façade, and the outside of the windows of the house was also pasted with glass of the same material as the glass curtain wall, and the house where the window was located was owned by the defendant Company A and leased to the defendant Company B for use, and the window was in normal use when the glass on the outside of the window fell, and had functions such as ventilation and lighting, so the window should not be interpreted as a part of the external wall of the entire building because the glass of the same material was pasted on the outside.

In recent years, there have been many accidents involving people and property caused by falling objects from high altitudes, which seriously endanger public safety. Falling objects mainly come from building doors and windows, curtain wall glass, billboards, light boxes, etc., as well as high-rise residents' discarded objects, balcony placements, etc., on the one hand, the owners need to improve their own quality, do not throw debris out of the window, and at the same time regularly and strictly check their windows, balcony shelves, On the other hand, the property should also be conscientious, regularly inspect and investigate the hidden dangers of high-rise buildings, and repair problems in a timely manner; in addition, natural persons themselves should abide by the rules, should not park vehicles indiscriminately, develop a good habit of civilized parking, and fulfill a high degree of care and care for their own rights and interests, and the joint efforts of the three parties can greatly reduce the probability of falling objects and damaging people and things.

Links to legal provisions

Article 1253 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a building, structure or other facility and its shelving or hanging objects fall off or fall and cause damage to others, and the owner, manager or user cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability. After the owner, manager or user makes compensation, if there are other responsible persons, they have the right to recover from the other responsible persons.

Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over the Differentiated Ownership of Buildings: In addition to the common parts provided for by laws and administrative regulations, the following parts within the building zoning shall also be recognized as the common parts referred to in Chapter 6 of Part II of the Civil Code:

(1) The foundation, load-bearing structure, exterior wall, roof and other basic structural parts of the building, the passages, stairs, lobbies and other public passage parts, fire protection, public lighting and other ancillary facilities and equipment, refuge floors, equipment floors or equipment rooms and other structural parts;

(2) Other places and facilities that do not belong to the exclusive part of the owner, nor do they belong to the municipal public part or other rights holders. The land within the building zoning shall be jointly enjoyed by the owners in accordance with the law, except for the planned land occupied by the entire building or the land occupied by urban public roads and green spaces that belong to the exclusive property of the owner.