Managing water damage is a recurring issue in condominiums and often leads to complex legal disputes. In a recent ruling (Court of Appeal of Genoa, n. 1379 of 19 November 2024), the judges faced an emblematic case.
The incident originated from an episode of infiltration caused by heavy rain, which caused significant damage to the spaces of a commercial business located in a condominium.
The damaged party accused the condominium of failure to maintain guttersholding him responsible for the infiltrations and requesting compensation for the damages suffered. However, technical analyzes raised doubts about the origin of the problem, attributing it to a waterproofing defect in a private skylight.
This ruling offers interesting ideas for better understanding condominium responsibilities and the criteria with which they are established. What aspects guided the judges in their decision? How can condominiums and owners prevent similar disputes?
Let’s find out together.
Advertisement – Advertising
The case: a dispute between condominium and private property
The legal case developed following an episode of water infiltration which occurred in a mixed-use condominium building, where one of the properties is intended for commercial use. The event, which occurred after heavy rainfall, caused significant damage to the business’s offices, warehouse and workshop.
According to the plaintiff, the problem was attributable to the lack of maintenance of the condominium gutters, which would have caused the overflow of rainwater and consequently the flooding of the internal environments.
The damaged party sued the condominium, requesting compensation equal to approximately 63,000 euros for material damage and over 10,000 euros for downtime and damage to the image. In support of his claims, he invoked the liability of the condominium based on articles 2043 and 2051 of the Civil Code, concerning respectively extra-contractual liability and liability for damage caused by things in custody.
At first instance, the Court of Genoa rejected the actress’ requests. The decision was based on the findings of the CTU, which excluded the condominium’s liability, instead identifying a defect in the waterproofing of the privately owned skylight as the most probable cause of the leaks. This defect, characterized by a poor state of conservation of the waterproofing sheath, would have allowed water to filter into the building.
The appellant contested this decision, highlighting alleged gaps in the CTU and requesting its renewal, to demonstrate the condominium’s responsibility.
However, the Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision, deeming the technical analyzes carried out by the expert witness adequate and complete.
Advertisement – Advertising
The technical evaluations of the sentence
One of the central aspects of this case was the technical analysis conducted by the CTU (Office Technical Consultant) appointed by the Court. The technical report had a decisive role in clarifying the causes of the infiltrations and in excluding the condominium’s responsibility.
The CTU highlighted how the drainage system of the condominium’s rainwater was adequate and in a good state of maintenance at the time of the fact. The analysis showed that the rainfall, although intense, had not exceeded the flow capacity of the condominium gully. Furthermore, no significant overflows were detected that could have justified flooding attributable to the common parts of the building.
On the other hand, the technical inspection identified a serious waterproofing defect in the skylight owned by the appellant. The waterproofing sheath was in a poor state of preservation, with deteriorated vertical flaps that would have allowed water to infiltrate during the rains. This conclusion was supported by photographic evidence and examination of party reports.
Despite the objections raised by the appellant on the alleged incompleteness and partiality of the expert opinion, the Court of Appeal found that the consultant had carried out an exhaustive and well-argued analysis. The court also underlined that, given the temporal distance between the accident and the technical analysis (over eight years), it was inevitable to rely on reconstructions and data available at the time of the facts.
Advertisement – Advertising
Relevant legal aspects of the sentence
From a legal point of view, the sentence of the Court of Appeal of Genoa offers important clarifications on the application of articles 2043 and 2051 of the Civil Code. Both articles refer to liability for damages, but with significant differences in the assumptions.
Article 2051 concerns strict liability for damage caused by things in custody. In this case, the injured party is required to demonstrate the causal link between the damage suffered and the property in the defendant’s custody (in this case the common parts of the condominium).
Item no. 2051
Damage caused by thing in custodyEveryone is responsible for the damage caused by the things in their custody, unless proven by fortuitous circumstances.
However, the condominium can free itself from this responsibility by demonstrating that the damage was caused by a fortuitous event or by an external cause not attributable to its management.
Article 2043, however, establishes Aquilian or fault-based liability, requiring the injured party to prove not only the causal connection, but also the omission or negligent behavior of the defendant.
Article no. 2043
Compensation for tortAny intentional or negligent act which causes unjust damage to others obliges the person who committed the act to compensate for the damage.
In the case in question, the Court held that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate either the causal link or the condominium’s negligence in the maintenance of the common areas.
A crucial aspect that emerged from the ruling is the adoption of the “more probable than not” principle, used in civil law to determine the causal link. According to this criterion, the judge evaluates what is the most probable cause of the damageexcluding alternative hypotheses not supported by sufficient evidence.
The Court reiterated that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the lack of waterproofing of the skylight was the most plausible explanation for the infiltrations.
This case also highlights the importance of technical rigor in producing evidence. Although the appellant had presented a biased expert opinion, its mainly descriptive nature and the lack of objective evidence led the Court to confirm the conclusions of the expert witness.
