202 1-06- 15: Rain disaster: The garage was flooded and the vehicles were flooded. Should the property be compensated?

"Affected by the shear line, extreme weather and climate events occurred in our city from 07: 00 to 05: 00 on June 20021year. The local heavy rainfall reached 322 mm, and the hourly rainfall intensity reached 125.4 mm, which was the largest precipitation in Puyang city since its establishment. Without the influence of typhoons, such weather history is rare. "

This is the news judged by Puyang Meteorological Bureau in the future. Behind just a few lines is the disaster of a city. A sudden rainstorm instantly turned the city into Wang Yang and Longxiang into a water town. Almost all roads were flooded, many vehicles broke down, many communities were seriously flooded, and even flooded into basements and garages, causing great losses to citizens' property. After the disaster, even if there is still heavy rain, relevant departments have begun to organize rescue to minimize losses.

People have fortunes at any time, and the moon is full of rain or shine. In the face of natural disasters, human beings are actually quite fragile. After the storm, what you see is not necessarily a rainbow, but all kinds of troubles that are constantly being combed. But in the final analysis, the problem still needs to be dealt with and faced. This platform attempts to trace the source from the legal point of view and discuss the handling of related issues for your reference. Today, the first phase is launched: the garage is flooded and the vehicle is flooded. Should the property be compensated?

Before answering this question, we might as well look at a case:

2065438+On August 3, 2007, Dalian was hit by heavy rain, and the underground garage of Jiaxinghai Community in Shahekou District was flooded, and many cars were flooded. A Beijing Hyundai car parked by Mr. Sun was damaged by flooding, and it cost 43,000 yuan to repair the car. Afterwards, Mr. Sun sued the residential property to the court and asked the property company to compensate the vehicle maintenance loss of 43,000 yuan.

The court held that the defendant, as a residential property service unit, had the obligation to manage and maintain the residential property service area. Article 47 of the Regulations on Property Management also stipulates that property service enterprises shall assist in the safety precautions within the property management area. When a safety accident occurs, the realty service enterprise shall, while taking emergency measures, report to the relevant administrative departments in time to assist in the rescue work. Because the property management company did not fully fulfill the obligations stipulated in the law and the property service contract, resulting in the flooding damage of Mr. Sun's car, the property management company should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.

On the responsibility, on August 3rd and 4th, 20th17, due to the influence of the northbound residual circulation of Typhoon Haitang 10 and the cold air in the north, there was heavy precipitation in the whole city. The factors such as wide rainfall range, heavy rainfall, strong intensity, poor drainage of municipal pipe network, and low-lying garage in the residential area all increase the difficulty for the defendant to prevent the garage from entering water and protect the property of the owner.

As an adult, Mr. Sun should be able to predict the possible harm caused by heavy rain. Mr. Sun didn't realize the possible danger of parking his car in the underground garage during the rainstorm, so he didn't pay due attention to his property. As a property service department, the defendant predicted the rainfall and time of the rainstorm before August 3, 20 17, and issued an early warning to the public through various media such as the Internet. If the defendant took active and effective measures to prevent and drain, the losses caused by the rainstorm may be minimized. According to the actual situation of the case and the defendant's responsibility in the accident, the court ruled that Mr. Sun should bear 70% of the responsibility, and the residential property should bear Mr. Sun's losses at a rate of 30%.

The People's Court of Shahekou District ruled in the first instance that Dalian Ruixin Property Management Co., Ltd. compensated Mr. Sun for the loss of vehicle maintenance 1.29 million yuan; Reject the plaintiff's other claims.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the property company refused to accept it and appealed. The property management company believes that the rainstorm from the night of August 3, 20 17 to the early morning of August 4, 2007 is a natural disaster, which is in line with the force majeure stipulated by law. The property has fulfilled its obligation to inform and taken reasonable preventive measures, and should not be responsible for the consequences of damage to Mr. Sun's vehicle; The original trial was based on Article 47 of the Regulations on Property Management. "The realty service enterprise shall assist in the safety work within the realty management area. In the event of a safety accident, the property service enterprise shall report to the relevant administrative departments in a timely manner while taking emergency measures to assist in the rescue work. " It is wrong to think that the property company has not fully fulfilled its obligations stipulated by law and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation. The law does not specifically define "full performance", but exempts property service enterprises from fulfilling the above obligations. Before the rainstorm, the property company has taken preventive measures and should not be liable for compensation.

The court of second instance held that force majeure refers to an objective situation that cannot be foreseen, avoided and overcome. 20 17 Although there was heavy precipitation in the whole city on August 3-4, it was not force majeure. The final judgment of Dalian Intermediate People's Court: the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

It can be concluded that:

Owners can claim compensation from the property management company.

In most cases, water accumulation is a process of gradual accumulation, which is not beyond judgment and force majeure. Therefore, if there is a flooded car, the property is responsible.

The property has signed a property service contract with the owner, and the property company needs to bear the corresponding responsibility of collecting property service fees. The weather forecast has predicted the rainstorm, and the property company should remind the owners in advance by posting announcements and broadcasting. If the property company fails to notify in place, stop it in time and perform the duties of emergency rescue, then it can be concluded that the property company is at fault and should bear corresponding responsibilities.

According to Article 47 of the Regulations on Property Management, the property service enterprise shall assist in the security work within the property management area. When a safety accident occurs, the realty service enterprise shall, while taking emergency measures, report to the relevant administrative departments in time to assist in the rescue work. Because the property company has not fully fulfilled its obligations stipulated by law and the property service contract, the property company shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation.

Force majeure factors stipulated by law: refers to objective circumstances that cannot be foreseen, avoided and overcome when concluding a contract. Including natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes, floods and hail; Government actions, such as expropriation and requisition; Social anomalies, such as strikes and riots.

Heavy rain is a foreseeable factor, and the consequences after heavy rain are cumulative, so the situation that the underground garage is flooded is not force majeure.

Secondly, if the property has fulfilled its obligations, but it still causes property losses, then the property has fulfilled the contract provisions and is not within the scope of compensation for breach of contract.