A recent sentence of the Court of Salerno has established a key principle regarding liability for infiltrations in condominium buildings. The case concerns an apartment damaged by humidity and moldcaused both by structural problems of the condominium and by works carried out in the overlying real estate unit.
After years of unheard requests, the owners of the apartment have started a cause to obtain compensation for the damage suffered. The Court recognized the liability of the condominium and the superior owner, condemning them to pay Over 25,000 euros.
But what are the implications of this sentence for the owners of real estate? Who is responsible when infiltrations occur in a condominium? And how is it possible to protect yourself legally?
Advertisement – Advertising
The facts of the case: years of inconvenience and lack of interventions
The problem of the infiltrations in the apartment on the first floor of the condominium had already started in 2009, when the owners had noticed the first signs of humidity and stretches in the rooms of the kitchen and the bathroom. Over time, the situation had worsened, so much so that the walls had begun to show evident signs of deterioration, with bewitched plasters, green-black mold stains and a persistent moisture smell that made the normal habitability of the property difficult.
According to what reported in the sentence, the damages were attributable to two main causes:
- The accumulation of resulting materials and the lack of ventilation in the cavity of the condominiumwhich prevented the correct outflow of water and favored the formation of condensation and mold.
- The infiltrations from the apartment abovewhere renovations had been carried out, who had worsened the situation, causing water losses that infiltrated the ceilings and walls of the underlying unit.
The occupants of the apartment had repeatedly reported the problem to the administrator of the condominium and the owner of the property above. In particular, they had sent several recommended and raised the problem during the condominium assemblies. In addition, on some occasions, the urban police of Amalfi had also intervened, who had carried out inspections and drawn up minutes which attest to the seriousness of the situation.
A particularly critical episode had occurred on the night of the 20 July 2013when the water had invaded the channels of the electrical system, even coming out of the entrance chandelier and causing a short circuit that had left the apartment without electricity. A similar event had been repeated in the May 2014leading again to the intervention of the local authorities, who had noted that construction and hydraulic works were being carried out in the property above.
To worsen the situation, in 2014 one of the occupants of the apartment, already suffering from respiratory problems, had undergone an aggravation of its health conditions due to continuous exposure to mold and humidity. The attending physician had confirmed that the unhealthy environment had contributed to the worsening of the clinical picture.
Despite all these evidence, neither the condominium nor the owner of the overlying apartment had taken adequate measures to solve the problem. The owners of the damaged apartment, exasperated by inertia and continuous inconvenience, had therefore decided to start a legal cause, asking for compensation for the material and moral damage suffered.
Advertisement – Advertising
The sentence: ascertained liability and condemnation to compensation
The Court of Salerno, with the sentence no. 137/2025established the liability of the condominium and the owner of the apartment above for the damages suffered by the actors due to the infiltrations of water and the consequent insalubility of the home.
According to the judge, the condominium was supposed to guarantee correct maintenance of the Attarcapedine, avoiding the accumulation of humidity and the formation of mold, while the owner of the upper apartment should have adopted all the precautions necessary to prevent the restructuring works from causing damage to the unit below. The inactivity of both has aggravated the situation over the years, making the apartment almost uninhabitable and causing a worsening of the health conditions of one of the occupants.
After analyzing the report of the Office technical consultant (CTU)the Court considered the requests of the actors and has founded and has sentenced to the defendants to compensation for damages.
The judge established that the cost for restoring the property was equal to 15,548.09 eurosunderstanding the interventions necessary for the removal of mold, the renovation of the plasters and the repair of damaged systems. Also recognized 10,000 euros for non -pecuniary damagein consideration of the resolution and repercussions on the health of the sick occupying.
On the contrary, the Court has rejected the compensation request for damaged movable property, including furniture, books, computers and valuables, believing that adequate documentation had not been provided to prove the actual amount of damages. He also excluded compensation for the moral damage iure hereditatis, since the person who died during the process had not formally made this request in life.
Finally, the judge did not accept the sentence for conviction for reckless dispute towards the condominium and the owner of the upper floor, stating that their defense, albeit unfounded, was not pretentious. The procedural costs were partially compensated between the parties, while those relating to the technical consultancy were divided into proportion to the respective responsibilities.
This sentence once again confirms a key principle of condominium law: Those who have the management and control of a property have the obligation to take all the necessary measures to prevent damage to other condominiums and owners. The inertia in maintenance or negligent execution of works can lead to not only economic damage, but also relevant legal consequences.
Advertisement – Advertising
The legal foundation of the decision
The Court of Salerno has based its decision mainly onArticle 2051 of the Civil Codewhich governs the responsibility of the custodian. This rule establishes that “Everyone is responsible for the damage caused by the things he has in custody, unless you feel the fortuitous case”. In essence, those who have the control and management of an asset – as in the case of the condominium and the owner of the upper plan – is required to guarantee their safety and prevent harmful situations for third parties.
In the specific case, the judge recognized that:
- The condominium He was responsible for not having carried out adequate interventions to eliminate the accumulation of humidity in the cavity, despite repeated reports.
- The owner of the apartment above He had contributed to the damage with the renovation works that had generated water infiltrations.
- The actors had provided enough evidence to demonstrate the causal link Between the state of the places and damage suffered, through local police reports, photographs, testimonies and technical appraisals.
The judge reiterated that the objective responsibility of the custodian It implies that it is not necessary to demonstrate direct fault, but only the causal link between the thing kept and the damage suffered. Instead, it was up to the condominium and the owner of the upper floor showing that the damage was due to a fortuitous casethat is, to an unpredictable and inevitable event, which has not been proven.
The Court also referred to previous jurisprudentials, underlining that The condominium is responsible for the common parts And he must take all the necessary measures to avoid damage to other condominiums. In addition, the renovation works in the apartment above had been carried out without due attention, further aggravating the situation.
