As a tenant, if you flood a neighbouring flat, you are not always obliged to compensate for the damage

26.2.2024

Many a legal layman would probably conclude that in the event of a malfunction of an item in the apartment (e.g., a toilet hose or a water tap), the tenant of the apartment is legally responsible for its perfect and functional condition, it is the tenant of the apartment who is liable for the damage resulting from such malfunction. This may be in particular damage caused by flooding of the lower flat. Such a conclusion is correct in most cases. Last year, however, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic ruled that this may not always be the case, especially if the tenant of the apartment could not have foreseen the occurrence of the accident and the damage (Supreme Court judgment of 27 March 2023, Case No. 25 Cdo 1999/2022).

The tenant is obliged to carry out routine maintenance and minor repairs

Pursuant to Section 2257(2) of the Civil Code, the tenant of an apartment is obliged to carry out and pay for routine maintenance and minor repairs related to the use of the apartment.

Pursuant to Government Decree No 308/2015 Coll., minor repairs to be carried out by the tenant of an apartment include, but are not limited to, repairs of water outlets, replacement and repair of shut-off valves on water distribution systems except for the main shut-off valve for the apartment or replacement of siphons. According to this Government Regulation, the tenant of the dwelling is also obliged to carry out regular inspections and cleaning of water outlets.

The aforementioned obligations of the tenant of the flat to carry out and pay for minor repairs and routine maintenance of the flat are not altered by the provision of the law that it is the landlord who is obliged to ensure that the flat is in a condition fit for proper use (see, for example, the Supreme Court's decision of 27 September 2017, Case No. 25 Cdo 450/2016, which, although based on the repealed Civil Code, is also applicable to the current legislation).

The aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court of 27 September 2017, Case No. 25 Cdo 450/2016, also shows, inter alia, that the tenant is liable for damage caused by flooding of the neighbouring apartment due to the bursting of the supply hose to the toilet. The tenant is obliged to maintain the hose in a condition that it does not burst. This conclusion appears in other Supreme Court decisions.

Thus, the Supreme Court's case law is settled in the conclusion that if damage occurs as a result of the failure of an item which the tenant is legally obliged to maintain and repair, the tenant is in principle obliged to compensate for the damage. In its decision of 29 July 2022 in Case No. 25 Cdo 2342/2021, the Supreme Court concluded that 'if the damage to the lower non-residential space was caused by a water leak in the upper non-residential space following the bursting of the supply hose under the washbasin (i.e. it was not the main water shut-off for that non-residential space), it is a damage resulting directly from the defendant's failure to fulfil its obligation to carry out routine maintenance and minor repairs to the leased premises'.

Some of you will have noticed that the decision quoted above relates to a non-residential premises (premises used for business purposes), not a flat. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted here that the Supreme Court in the above decision openly advocates the use of the analogy under Article 10 of the Civil Code, precisely in relation to the regulation of routine maintenance and minor repairs related to the use of the apartment. Thus, the rights and obligations arising from the legal regulation of routine maintenance and minor repairs of the flat (including liability for damage) can be applied by analogy to the lease of premises used for business purposes. According to the case law of the Supreme Court, the aforementioned legal regulation applies by analogy to the relations between a tenant and a subtenant.

It should be noted that all of the above rights and obligations relating to repairs and maintenance (and the resulting liability) may be regulated differently between the landlord and the tenant, in particular in the lease agreement. However, in line with the concept of enhanced tenant protection, such adjustments can only be made to the detriment of the landlord.

Possibility of liberation according to the Supreme Court

In its decision of 27 March 2023, Case No. 25 Cdo 1999/2022, the Supreme Court considered the case of flooding of the lower flat and the related liability for damages. It came to the perhaps surprising conclusion that the tenant of the flat in which the water valve under the sink burst is not liable to compensate the owner of the lower flat that was flooded.

In the present case, the water valve in the apartment broke and the downstairs apartment was subsequently flooded. At the trial, the experts agreed that the broken valve was made of zinc or other white alloy and the lever was made of plastic, the European standard being that such valves are made of brass with lead added. According to the experts, the broken valve was a poor quality product probably originating in Asia and the tenant of the flat could not have foreseen the breaking of the valve in any way.

In particular, the Supreme Court took this fact into account in its decision. Even if the tenant of the flat had carried out regular inspections of the taps and valves, he could not, according to the experts, have foreseen the breaking of the valve in any way, nor could he have recognised the defect or the inferior quality of the material. "Thus, in the present case, if it was established as to the cause of the accident that the tenant of the apartment could not have foreseen the breakage of the defectively installed and defective valve even if he had complied with the regular inspections of the taps, and that he could not have recognized the defect in the material of the valve or its defective installation even if he had regularly inspected it (while it cannot be overlooked that at the same time the landlord's obligation to hand over the apartment in a fit condition for use applies - § 2205 in conjunction with § 2242, 2243 o. Z.), it cannot be concluded that the damage was caused by a breach of the tenant's legal obligation to carry out routine maintenance of the leased property."

The Supreme Court also considered significant the fact that the poor quality water valve was installed in the apartment before the tenant moved in. It is the landlord who is obliged by law to hand over the apartment in a fit state for use.
Thus, according to the Supreme Court, in the present case the tenant did not breach any of its obligations and did not incur any liability for damages. The Court of Appeal was wrong to order the tenant to pay compensation for the damage. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, dismissing the action in its entirety.

In conclusion, it should be added generally that if you are a tenant in a similar situation, you must prove in court the specific reason why the valve burst and that you are not responsible for the burst. If you, as the tenant, fail to do so, you are liable for the damages.