Shanghai Putuo District People's Court
Civil judgment
(2016) Hu 0107 Min Chu No. 24401
Plaintiff Huang XX, female, born on November 26, 1955, Han nationality, residing in Shiquan XX, Shanghai.
The entrusted agent is Han Jing, a lawyer of Shanghai Keshang Law Firm. The entrusted agent is Xue XX, a lawyer of Shanghai Keshang Law Firm.
Defendant He XX, male, born on September 7, 1955, Han nationality, residing in Shiquan XX, Shanghai.
The defendant Yuan XX, female, born on September 13, 1953, lives in Shiquan XX, Shanghai.
The entrusted agent, He XX, male, has the same nationality and address as above.
Defendant He XX, male, born on January 28, 1987, residing in Shiquan XX, Shanghai.
The entrusted agent, He XX, male, has the same nationality and address as above.
The defendant, Shanghai XX Company, has its domicile in Shiquan, Shanghai.
Legal representative: Zhao XX, manager.
The entrusted agent is Liu XX, a staff member of the company.
The case of property damage compensation dispute between the plaintiff Huang XX and the defendant He XX, the defendant Yuan XX, the defendant He XX, and the defendant Shanghai XX Company was accepted by our court, and the judge Zhang XX was appointed to try it alone according to law, and the trial was held in public. The plaintiff Huang XX and his entrusted agents Han Jing and Xue XX, the defendant He XX, as the entrusted agent of the defendant Yuan XX and the defendant He XX, and the entrusted agent of the defendant Shanghai XX Company Liu XX attended the lawsuit. The trial of this case has now been concluded.
The plaintiff Huang XX claimed that: in the afternoon of February 9, 2016, the plaintiff saw that the defendant's house had dirty water leaking into the public walkway. After the neighbors reported for property repair, the property company cleared the drain at the gate at about 4 p.m., saying that there was no way, but to deal with the water leakage at the plaintiff's house at more than 19 p.m. on February 9, 2016 after the defendant's house had someone in it. On the 10th of the same month, the plaintiff informed the neighborhood committee, and the staff of the neighborhood committee said that they contacted the defendant. By the 12th of the same month, the water leakage was very serious. The plaintiff reported the property to the police and reported to the 12345 platform, which said that as long as the property, neighborhood committee and 110 were present, they could pry the door. But 110
Some people said that leaders should not break the door unless life is in danger. The defendant did not come back for handling until the neighbors found him on the evening of February 12. It is said that the kitchen of the defendant's house leaked water. The plaintiff does not know whether the property has unblocked the sewer, but only knows that the water leaked from the defendant's house for three full days. On the evening of February 12, the plaintiff still had water at home. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, the court is requested to order the four defendants to compensate the plaintiff 1. The house repair loss caused by water leakage is RMB 4516 (the following currencies are all RMB); 2. The loss of bedding caused by water leakage is 2584 yuan; 3. The cost of cleaning the house is 2000 yuan; 4. From February 12, 2016 to now, the cost of borrowing in the home of relatives and colleagues is 1000 yuan.
Defendant He XX, Defendant Yuan XX and Defendant He XX argued that the house of the Plaintiff and Defendant had 1-7 floors. On the New Year's Eve of 2016, because the mother of the First Defendant needed care, the wife of the Third Defendant was going to have a child, and the First and Second Defendants had to leave home for a few days during the Spring Festival. The First Defendant was worried about the pipeline blockage, and had asked the property company to come to the house to dredge the sewer again. On February 10 of the same year, before going out on the morning of the third day of the lunar new year, the first defendant also pressed the kitchen sewer pipes with yellow sand bags. As a result, there was no one at home, and the sewer of the defendant's kitchen was still blocked. On the evening of the 12th of the same month, a neighbor called the second defendant and said that the defendant's water pipe might be broken. The defendant went home at about 9 p.m. and found that there was water in his house. Reported to the property for repair. At about 10 pm, the property came to the house. The defendant asked the property to dredge both the outdoor sewer and the defendant's sewer. The blocked part was at the water outlet on the first floor. After the property was cleared, there was still water in the defendant's house. The defendant believed that when the water began to leak, the plaintiff should take remedial measures at home, and those like quilts could be moved away immediately. Therefore, the water leakage was not caused by the burst of the defendant's water pipe, and the defendant's home was also damaged, so we did not agree with the plaintiff's claim.
The defendant Shanghai XX Company argued that, according to the property management regulations, the fourth defendant regularly dredged the outdoor manager twice a year, respectively once in March to April and once in September to November. The Respondent's residential area was built in the 1980s, and the construction structure of the house made it easy to flood. The main sewer pipe is iron pipe, which has been used for decades and is getting finer and finer. Moreover, many owners' homes have been decorated, and the property company has no way to replace the pipes. Improper use by residents can easily lead to blockage of the main pipe. In 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant only reported the problem of the Chief Manager twice, which means that the Chief Manager has no problem. The water leakage of the plaintiff's house occurred on the third day of the new year, at about 4:00 p.m., the property was promptly present after receiving the repair report. The residents on the 3rd and 7th floors used improper water and had garbage, which caused the main sewer used by the residents on the 2nd and 7th floors to be blocked and flooded to the 2nd floor. At that time, there was no one in Room 203, so it was impossible to enter. The property management company went to the roof to clear the situation. After dredging, the overflowing water will leak to the plaintiff's house for several days on the floor laid in Room 203. The plaintiff said that 150 yuan is enough to clean the marble. The door frame and cupboard are solid wood, just wipe them clean. Therefore, the maximum cost of the plaintiff's home repair is 1000 yuan. The plaintiff should also timely remove the cotton tire, pillow insert, pillow case, etc., and also consider depreciation. The palm shed on the bed can also be repaired. The plaintiff does not need to buy gifts and transportation fees to stay at the home of relatives and colleagues. At present, the property management company has cleared the situation in a timely manner because there is no one in Room 203, so it does not agree with the plaintiff's claim.
The trial found that the plaintiff and the first, second and third defendants were the house owners of Room XX and Room 203-4 in Shiquan, Shanghai respectively. The fourth defendant is the property management department of the housing estate. The second floor to the sixth floor of the houses of both parties share a sewer, and the first floor uses a separate sewer. On February 7, 2016 (New Year's Eve), the kitchen sewer of Room 203-4 was often blocked. After the first defendant reported for repair, the staff of the fourth defendant went to the kitchen of Room 203-4 to dredge the sewer. On the 10th day of the same month (the third day of the lunar month), the kitchen sewer in Room 203-4 was blocked again, because the house in Room 203-4
There is no one. The water overflows from the kitchen sink to the ground and then to the public walkway. The plaintiff and its neighbors reported to the fourth defendant for repair. The fourth defendant went to the scene several times to drain the sewer pipe through the whole building of No. 17 outdoors. On the same day, the plaintiff found that there was water leakage in his home, so he called the police and was told: "Notify the property to come to the scene to solve the problem". The next day, because the defendant's neighbors informed the local neighborhood committee and the neighborhood committee reported for repair, the fourth defendant's staff came again to dredge the outdoor pipeline. Same month
At 11:00 on the 12th, Zhang XX, the plaintiff's neighbor, reported to the fourth defendant that there was water in the corridor on the first floor, and the fourth defendant went outdoors and on the roof again to dredge; And discharge water to the third floor; At 16:48, the plaintiff reported to the fourth defendant for repair due to water leakage in the house and called the police at 16:55, and was told: "The right way to solve the problem". At 18:57 on the same day, the first defendant called the fourth defendant for repair due to serious leakage of kitchen sewer, and requested that it be handled as soon as possible. At 19:24, the plaintiff called the police again and asked the police to help open the door of Room 203. After the police made an explanation, they told him: "I don't support his claim". The plaintiff didn't understand and said that he would continue
Call 110; At 19:35, the fourth defendant went to Room 203-4 to dredge the main sewer. After that, the plaintiff claimed compensation from the first, second and third defendants, but it was unsuccessful, so the plaintiff filed a complaint to this court and requested a judgment as if it had been filed.
In addition, on March 20, April 5, May 1, September 8, 2015, February 4, 2016 (February 7, the fourth defendant's door-to-door dredging), February 12, February 27, May 29, September 25, September 26, November 24, and December 2, 2016, the first defendant reported to the fourth defendant for repair due to kitchen flashing. In 2016, relevant departments confirmed that the fourth defendant regularly dredged sewers and roof drains twice.
The Court believes that the common parts of the property refer to the common parts of the housing and the common facilities and equipment in the property management. The property right of common parts and facilities of the property shall belong to all owners. As the property management department, the fourth defendant is obliged to maintain the normal use of the public parts of the house. According to the regulations, the fourth defendant should regularly dredge the public pipelines of the property under his management and should make irregular inspections; The owner is also obliged to timely repair the daily repair report. However, the kitchen sewer is located in Room 203-4, and the first, second and third defendants, as the owner of the house, should pay attention to maintenance at ordinary times. If the sewer is blocked or leaking, they should report for repair in time. The existing evidence proves that the first defendant reported for repair 12 times for 203-4 house due to cold blockage of kitchen sewer between March 20, 2015 and December 2, 2016. In February 2016, the first, second and third defendants, taking into account the needs of the Spring Festival holiday and travel, requested the fourth defendant to open the sewer on February 7 (the 30th day of the Lunar New Year) without any congestion, and did their best to pay attention to and prevent the first obligation. However, on the 10th of the same month, when there was no water in the 203-4 kitchen, the sewer pipe was blocked again. When the first defendant learned that there was a water leak at home, he immediately reported to the fourth defendant for repair, and rushed home to ask for treatment as soon as possible. Therefore, the first, second and third defendants have fulfilled their obligations to manage their houses. The leakage caused damage to 203-4 House and 103-4 House to varying degrees, which was not caused by the intention or negligence of the first, second and third defendants, so there is no need to
Responsibility for compensation: In this case, on February 7, 2016, the fourth defendant went to the house to dredge the kitchen sewer in Room 203-4. On February 10, 11, and 12, the plaintiff, the defendant's neighbors, the local neighborhood committee, and the first defendant reported to the fourth defendant for repair. After receiving the report, the fourth defendant rushed to the scene to check and dredge without prevarication or delay, Timely fulfilled the maintenance obligation. The relevant departments also confirmed that the fourth defendant regularly dredged the residential buildings of the plaintiff and the first, second and third defendants through public pipelines. The fourth defendant shall be deemed to have fulfilled the obligations of the property management unit. In view of the property loss caused by water leakage in the plaintiff's home, it was not caused by the fourth defendant's negligence in management and service. Therefore, the Court does not support the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the losses of the four defendants in this case. Accordingly, in accordance with Articles 37, 70, 76 and 84 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China; According to Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over the Ownership of Buildings, and Articles 60 and 107 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:
1、 We do not support the plaintiff Huang XX's claim that He XX, the defendant Yuan XX, the defendant He XX, and the defendant Shanghai XX Company should compensate the house repair loss of 4516 yuan due to water leakage;
2、 The plaintiff Huang XX's claim for the defendant He XX, the defendant Yuan XX, the defendant He XX, and the defendant Shanghai XX Company to compensate for the loss of bedding of 2584 yuan due to water leakage is not supported;
3、 We do not support the plaintiff Huang XX's claim that the defendant He XX, the defendant Yuan XX, the defendant He XX, and the defendant Shanghai XX should compensate the house cleaning cost of 2000 yuan;
4、 The Plaintiff Huang XX's claim that the Defendant He XX, the Defendant Yuan XX, the Defendant He XX, and the Defendant Shanghai XX Company should compensate the cost of RMB 1000 borrowed from relatives and colleagues since February 12, 2016 is not supported.
The case acceptance fee of RMB 52 is charged by half, and the total amount of RMB 26 is borne by the plaintiff.
If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you can submit a petition of appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the opposite party to appeal to Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court.
Judge District Person Zhang XX
April 18, 2017
Clerk Yao X
