Section 434 if the damage occurs because of housing or Other buildings are damaged, defective construction or inadequate maintenance, the ruler of your house or building that needs to use the claim, but if the rule is to use reasonable care. To parry and therefore prevent the damage. The owner must use the claim.
The provisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall apply at all to the. Deficiency in the plant or tree or sustain bamboo
In the case mentioned in paragraph two above it. If there are other people who are responsible for causing damage itself. Or the owner will retain the right to take recourse to any such person.
Section 435 any person may suffer any damage should occur from the house or other buildings owned by others. That person likes to be called to handle the necessary treatments to parry the danger to lose.
Section 436 a person in the house are responsible for damage caused because of the drop from the house, or because of It's left to throw in the fall should not.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 212/2544.
The plaintiff sued to force a defendant to hold the damage to the plaintiff to be born. I can not take legal action for damages resulting from the violation does not directly address the subject of the age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one
When the facts hear that the defendant, a practice violates the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1342 paragraphs one and two as a justification for sewage absorbed into the land and the house of the plaintiff and the smell can not live on the land and home. normal health in violation of provisions of law which is strictly prohibited, so is a violation of both the plaintiff that a defendant directly liable for compensation to the plaintiff, both under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420, although it was the defendant. 1 had transferred the condominium at the scene to the defendant, 2 and whether the defendant 1 would not be referred to the Civil and Commercial Section 434 exemption fault of their own, because this case damage did not occur because of the house or building. otherwise the construction defects or inadequate maintenance.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5783/2541.
Plaintiff's construction of concrete walls and block wall on the disputed land to the plaintiff to the defendant with their high office building 4-story concrete wall close of plaintiff's dispute settlement has caused the walls to crack the line Wall only one channel at 5 and 22 of plaster to crack, about 1 inch box channel wall is lined with a split of the 14 channels and along the walls waver * perpendicular to the original level. When the wall near the sewer after the defendant's office wall. * End of approximately 4 cm perpendicular to the inner and end * end * to the point that a lot. The first point the distance is 9 meters by 15 centimeters * end, when the dispute had damaged the wall in part of the 14 channels of dispute which the walls are all 22 channels can be considered that there is more damage than half of the wall dispute Moreover, disputes are tilted from vertical wall perpendicular to the same level as well coupled with the tilted Of the wall is not constant, but the tilt all the time. Which resulted in the wall of another dispute that has not been damaged. Have the opportunity to tilt the tension of the wall section is inclined. When you consider the damage that the plaintiff has received from a violation of the defendant. The defendant managed to demolish the wall and construction of new settlement is more appropriate than Construction of new walls to the defendant only the damaged portion. Although the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 435 which states that any person will suffer any damage should occur from the house or something. Other buildings owned by others. The person that likes to be called to handle the necessary treatments to parry danger The waste matter, but in the construction of the defendant. Defendant does not live or walls, but the defendant disputed the plaintiff's building near Wall disputed the plaintiff's only When the court took into account the damages that the plaintiff received from the construction of the wall close. Dispute and that the new wall construction to the defendant and the plaintiff can be considered. Have been treated at a danger parry, and then if it does not deserve to be. Defendant demolished buildings, causing damage that.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5284/2540.
This case the plaintiff to the defendant, a construction contract Dam concrete. And the consideration that both parties have contractual obligations to complete the defendant is a dike can be constructed and completed as promised and delivered to the plaintiff already. And the plaintiff had paid all construction costs for a defendant to complete as well. Debt that the parties must abide by the agreement ends. Is not the case that the court should consider whether a defendant is at fault or not the agreements.
Defendant, a construction contract with the plaintiff's dike, with an agreement for the defendant, a contract provider of luggage, and labor in the construction and completion. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the construction of a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff is a contract made under the Commercial Code, Section 587.
The dike construction contract dispute that was the case of defective work. Deficiencies that. If the damage occurs to the work of employment within 365 days from the date of the delivery tasks and duties of the Contractor shall immediately repair the. Completed within the time specified employer. And after the expiration of such period if it is a recurring defect. Contractors also be liable to the employer as Commercial Code as well. When it appears that the construction of the dike that a defendant is building on the ground, the design of the plaintiff. By the defendants to provide a luggage yourself and Dam where the defendant has caused damage to a building separation settlement. Which causes the degeneration of the right to benefits intended to be used as a regular. Clear to the plaintiff within the year from the date of delivery as the Commercial Code, Section 595 and 600, whether the defendant, a contractor already know or do not know if there is a defect that a defendant is liable. fault that Unless the defect is the fault of the plaintiff's employer. So the problem that the defendant, a petition arguing that Before construction of the defendant. 1 have examined the properties of soil compaction at construction tight times before. Cement concrete in proportion to the concrete and the bar to check the charge Strength to the weight specified. Ties, including iron and steel mesh placed by the plaintiff did not apply. Can not be diagnosed.
The first defendant to the damage that occurs because of the dam design is not invalid in case of water than usual, the dam blocks the water damage is due to the amount of water over the dam than normal. Although the construction of a dam conforms in all respects, it also requires dam collapse It has passed over the dam flash cause higher than normal amount of water exceeds the. Strength of the dam to get water. So damaged that When it appears that the construction of a dike that the defendant must know that the objective is to deal with large amount of water that flow abnormalities. The first construction contract that the defendant is likely to be an inspection of the nature of water to obtain the exact cause act before a defendant can not be attributed to a flood, such as force majeure DISCLAIMER be.
The sixth defendant, the plaintiff is the government's design, construction defects. Select construction errors due to improper angle fracture Unfavorable interest. When the water flow forces are caused as a result of battle damage and one department was not the designer. To find information from government agencies with expertise relevant to the design barriers. Water and Irrigation dam as large as the reason that the plaintiff's dike is not strong in the later birth defects. The plaintiff has been involved with the wrong address.
The plaintiff has issued an order No. 2 committee investigated the cause and the facts and the person responsible for dam case. Damaged reinforced concrete overflow Commission has concluded the investigation report. The plaintiff offered on March 21, 2527 for civil liability. Investigation Committee that the defendant, 2 (deceased) defendant, 3 and 4 has fails to comply with their duty to cause damage to the government the defendant to six engineers supervisors not control construction all shall be liable to pay the fee. Lost the civil government of the five defendants did not appear to have ignored its duty. Should not be liable for civil liability when not appear as Supreme Commander, and representatives of the plaintiff was aware at that time. The report said since when It can be reported that investigated the causes and facts, and personnel shall be liable as individuals. Preliminary investigation report the facts only. Can not hear that the plaintiff was made aware of the abuse.
Accused 3 and 4, has been appointed as directors of the defendant to hire 5 and 6 is the Construction Management Committee. Dam construction and the defendant is a contractor who did not have to go by the form and how to create a dike causing defects as cracks and erosion damage is not in use. Less than one year from the date of delivery. The defendants 3 and 4, the report proposed that a plaintiff that the defendant has successfully completed the pattern correctly, and details should be attached to the contract. For use in public. If the defendant, 5 and 6, are not negligent care to supervise the construction of accurate control theoretic The close dike would not crack crash damage in a short time after Delivery of such According to the plaintiff and the defendant believe that the construction of four to be in the form correctly so that the wages paid to a defendant the full amount of the contract. Held that the defendant, 3 4, 5 and 6 have common duties by negligence. The plaintiff has been damaged must be jointly liable for the damages to the plaintiff.
Defendant is liable to a plaintiff in a debt under a contract of the defendant to 3 to 4, 5 and 6 shall be jointly liable to plaintiff in violation of debt even cause damage. The plaintiff the same amount. However, it is liable for any liabilities that are in the same damage only It can not force the defendants jointly liable for all damages incurred by the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 158/2540.
Defendant owned steel poles and netting Golf Driving Range, which is structural error and not standard theoretically the impact of the storm when the storm plain as plain can occur naturally makes. steel frame and mesh construction, which fell over the defects, which are warehouse stock of the Corporation plc. The plaintiff-insurance has been damaged defendants are liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434, paragraph one The fire insurance policy stated that the insurance coverage has been expanded by the loss or damage arising from wind storms, etc. wet with water when the storm was the steel poles and netting of a warehouse collapsed over the defendant. Because the stock of the Corporation plc. The plaintiff's insurance on the wet rain, which the defendant owned buildings are responsible for when the plaintiff to pay compensation to the Corporation plc. Then the plaintiff would enter subrogation of the Corporation plc. Which is the defendant, a third party under the Civil and Commercial Section. 880, paragraph one
Judgement of the Supreme Court 75/2538.
Pine beside the road where municipal defendants a responsible condition decayed hollow, despite the rain and thunder on the scene, but it was raining slightly and moderately in the short and the speed of the wind as wind speed normal. The pine has fallen over the plaintiff's car is not due to force majeure due to weather conditions, but a defect of a defendant who refused to overthrow or shore pine to prevent damage to others that a defendant is liable. Damages to the plaintiff because of disability, life can not be controlled by the nervous system and digestive efficiency of sexual interest and can not walk to the damages that the plaintiff suffer from lifelong disability as a non-monetary damages either. two cases due to different events separated by reason of the liability separately, as each event has.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 28/2534.
Plaintiff to build shopping centers and commercial buildings for rent and sale, it is necessary to build roads within shopping centers and commercial buildings so that people living in the center and the general public as a way out. For the purpose of trade operations of the rental or purchase of commercial buildings. And the plaintiff was held when guarding the roads into the shopping center all the time. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to use the roads and sidewalks into the building next to the hotel where the defendant the plaintiff's land. Shows that the plaintiff still take possession of the area shopping centers are not intended to raise the roads and footpaths shall be public. When the defendant built building intrusion and damage to the road. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue Defendant created a high street front defendants other than the road within the center of the plaintiff. Cars and cement blocks to prevent water flowing into the street in front of Hotel defendant Act for the benefit of one party defendant without regard to the suffering of others who live in the center of the plaintiff. Road building and the defendant to the plaintiff's high street. And the plaintiff also responsible for all roads within the center of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has been damaged by the actions of the defendant. Defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4128/2528.
Even under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434 is subject to the rule or the owner of the tree requires compensation for damage caused by violation of any information on this subject, but in the case where the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Plaintiff's damages caused by defects in the coconut plantation or sustain that cause damage to the plaintiff, the defendant the plaintiff has the burden to prove to the court to see that Why the falling coconut trees and causing damage to the plaintiff caused by defects in growing or sustaining the defendant's right to find that the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove that no
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1438/2526.
The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for damages arising from the house or building of the defendant. Do not provide liability for infringement of plaintiff's employees do not have to attest to the status of employee involvement. Listening in on the fact that the damage caused by drainage from the hotel roof damaged, defective or inadequate maintenance. Defendant who is also a ruler and owner of the hotel roof and drain it. Therefore liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff insurers. Damages to the insured, which has been used by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434 in conjunction with Section 880.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2140/2520.
Defendant and the defendant's building for rent three floors of the building, but the defendant also is home to some of the defendant company and the offices of the defendant. Defendant is considered to dominate the building of the defendant. If the plaintiff's damages occurred because of the defendant's construction of the building damaged, defective or inadequate maintenance. Defendant who is also a ruler and owner of the building needs to use the compensation to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1028/2505.
Defendants are the plaintiff tenant cultivated land of the temple housing the defendant has neglected to live in the mango tree that is based on the land lease defendant sprawling homes to cover the plaintiff. Cause the plaintiff has been damaged. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue for infringement and damages the defendant was under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1201/2502.
The defendant is a municipal function, which will be performed ignore. That is, provided the tank is filled with ground floor before the open road the car has passed. Also appeared. The defendant did not provide what is well hamper a Dud flag for people to look passed. And at night did not provide the lamp brightness as appropriate. Defendant would have already seen that it is dangerous to cars and people traveling back and forth very well be left to live like that. Cause the plaintiff's car and drive people to the edge of this pond and damaged more The following shall be considered as negligence of the defendant to the plaintiff received. Damage the defendant liable for compensation to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court 1358 - 1359/2496.
Building owners are trying to repair his building to be damaged However, tenants in buildings that dominate the block. Not out of the building. It will not be fixed. Building owners are building for sale to the defendant. When it comes to the defendant. Defendant was also trying to find a way to prevent the demolition dangers can arise. But the lessee defendants would interfere with former singer with the Bureau of such district. But the district is unable to get help. Besides, the lessee has to recognize also that if the District for any damage caused by tenants will be responsible for themselves. But then, tenants have not managed treatment dispel To prevent any danger in not Would leave. Building until the walls break down the building over the plaintiff's damages as the defendant, the owner of the destroyed building. Need not responsible for any damage incurred as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 636/2485.
Kapok tree roots that are damaged by poor base and upright stems not waver through the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff told the defendant was aware of the damage. Management did not prevent in any way Kapok tree crushed when the plaintiff damages housing. Even as the storm or not even. The defendant is liable.
The provisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall apply at all to the. Deficiency in the plant or tree or sustain bamboo
In the case mentioned in paragraph two above it. If there are other people who are responsible for causing damage itself. Or the owner will retain the right to take recourse to any such person.
Section 435 any person may suffer any damage should occur from the house or other buildings owned by others. That person likes to be called to handle the necessary treatments to parry the danger to lose.
Section 436 a person in the house are responsible for damage caused because of the drop from the house, or because of It's left to throw in the fall should not.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 212/2544.
The plaintiff sued to force a defendant to hold the damage to the plaintiff to be born. I can not take legal action for damages resulting from the violation does not directly address the subject of the age of 1 year under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one
When the facts hear that the defendant, a practice violates the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 1342 paragraphs one and two as a justification for sewage absorbed into the land and the house of the plaintiff and the smell can not live on the land and home. normal health in violation of provisions of law which is strictly prohibited, so is a violation of both the plaintiff that a defendant directly liable for compensation to the plaintiff, both under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 420, although it was the defendant. 1 had transferred the condominium at the scene to the defendant, 2 and whether the defendant 1 would not be referred to the Civil and Commercial Section 434 exemption fault of their own, because this case damage did not occur because of the house or building. otherwise the construction defects or inadequate maintenance.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5783/2541.
Plaintiff's construction of concrete walls and block wall on the disputed land to the plaintiff to the defendant with their high office building 4-story concrete wall close of plaintiff's dispute settlement has caused the walls to crack the line Wall only one channel at 5 and 22 of plaster to crack, about 1 inch box channel wall is lined with a split of the 14 channels and along the walls waver * perpendicular to the original level. When the wall near the sewer after the defendant's office wall. * End of approximately 4 cm perpendicular to the inner and end * end * to the point that a lot. The first point the distance is 9 meters by 15 centimeters * end, when the dispute had damaged the wall in part of the 14 channels of dispute which the walls are all 22 channels can be considered that there is more damage than half of the wall dispute Moreover, disputes are tilted from vertical wall perpendicular to the same level as well coupled with the tilted Of the wall is not constant, but the tilt all the time. Which resulted in the wall of another dispute that has not been damaged. Have the opportunity to tilt the tension of the wall section is inclined. When you consider the damage that the plaintiff has received from a violation of the defendant. The defendant managed to demolish the wall and construction of new settlement is more appropriate than Construction of new walls to the defendant only the damaged portion. Although the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 435 which states that any person will suffer any damage should occur from the house or something. Other buildings owned by others. The person that likes to be called to handle the necessary treatments to parry danger The waste matter, but in the construction of the defendant. Defendant does not live or walls, but the defendant disputed the plaintiff's building near Wall disputed the plaintiff's only When the court took into account the damages that the plaintiff received from the construction of the wall close. Dispute and that the new wall construction to the defendant and the plaintiff can be considered. Have been treated at a danger parry, and then if it does not deserve to be. Defendant demolished buildings, causing damage that.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 5284/2540.
This case the plaintiff to the defendant, a construction contract Dam concrete. And the consideration that both parties have contractual obligations to complete the defendant is a dike can be constructed and completed as promised and delivered to the plaintiff already. And the plaintiff had paid all construction costs for a defendant to complete as well. Debt that the parties must abide by the agreement ends. Is not the case that the court should consider whether a defendant is at fault or not the agreements.
Defendant, a construction contract with the plaintiff's dike, with an agreement for the defendant, a contract provider of luggage, and labor in the construction and completion. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the construction of a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff is a contract made under the Commercial Code, Section 587.
The dike construction contract dispute that was the case of defective work. Deficiencies that. If the damage occurs to the work of employment within 365 days from the date of the delivery tasks and duties of the Contractor shall immediately repair the. Completed within the time specified employer. And after the expiration of such period if it is a recurring defect. Contractors also be liable to the employer as Commercial Code as well. When it appears that the construction of the dike that a defendant is building on the ground, the design of the plaintiff. By the defendants to provide a luggage yourself and Dam where the defendant has caused damage to a building separation settlement. Which causes the degeneration of the right to benefits intended to be used as a regular. Clear to the plaintiff within the year from the date of delivery as the Commercial Code, Section 595 and 600, whether the defendant, a contractor already know or do not know if there is a defect that a defendant is liable. fault that Unless the defect is the fault of the plaintiff's employer. So the problem that the defendant, a petition arguing that Before construction of the defendant. 1 have examined the properties of soil compaction at construction tight times before. Cement concrete in proportion to the concrete and the bar to check the charge Strength to the weight specified. Ties, including iron and steel mesh placed by the plaintiff did not apply. Can not be diagnosed.
The first defendant to the damage that occurs because of the dam design is not invalid in case of water than usual, the dam blocks the water damage is due to the amount of water over the dam than normal. Although the construction of a dam conforms in all respects, it also requires dam collapse It has passed over the dam flash cause higher than normal amount of water exceeds the. Strength of the dam to get water. So damaged that When it appears that the construction of a dike that the defendant must know that the objective is to deal with large amount of water that flow abnormalities. The first construction contract that the defendant is likely to be an inspection of the nature of water to obtain the exact cause act before a defendant can not be attributed to a flood, such as force majeure DISCLAIMER be.
The sixth defendant, the plaintiff is the government's design, construction defects. Select construction errors due to improper angle fracture Unfavorable interest. When the water flow forces are caused as a result of battle damage and one department was not the designer. To find information from government agencies with expertise relevant to the design barriers. Water and Irrigation dam as large as the reason that the plaintiff's dike is not strong in the later birth defects. The plaintiff has been involved with the wrong address.
The plaintiff has issued an order No. 2 committee investigated the cause and the facts and the person responsible for dam case. Damaged reinforced concrete overflow Commission has concluded the investigation report. The plaintiff offered on March 21, 2527 for civil liability. Investigation Committee that the defendant, 2 (deceased) defendant, 3 and 4 has fails to comply with their duty to cause damage to the government the defendant to six engineers supervisors not control construction all shall be liable to pay the fee. Lost the civil government of the five defendants did not appear to have ignored its duty. Should not be liable for civil liability when not appear as Supreme Commander, and representatives of the plaintiff was aware at that time. The report said since when It can be reported that investigated the causes and facts, and personnel shall be liable as individuals. Preliminary investigation report the facts only. Can not hear that the plaintiff was made aware of the abuse.
Accused 3 and 4, has been appointed as directors of the defendant to hire 5 and 6 is the Construction Management Committee. Dam construction and the defendant is a contractor who did not have to go by the form and how to create a dike causing defects as cracks and erosion damage is not in use. Less than one year from the date of delivery. The defendants 3 and 4, the report proposed that a plaintiff that the defendant has successfully completed the pattern correctly, and details should be attached to the contract. For use in public. If the defendant, 5 and 6, are not negligent care to supervise the construction of accurate control theoretic The close dike would not crack crash damage in a short time after Delivery of such According to the plaintiff and the defendant believe that the construction of four to be in the form correctly so that the wages paid to a defendant the full amount of the contract. Held that the defendant, 3 4, 5 and 6 have common duties by negligence. The plaintiff has been damaged must be jointly liable for the damages to the plaintiff.
Defendant is liable to a plaintiff in a debt under a contract of the defendant to 3 to 4, 5 and 6 shall be jointly liable to plaintiff in violation of debt even cause damage. The plaintiff the same amount. However, it is liable for any liabilities that are in the same damage only It can not force the defendants jointly liable for all damages incurred by the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 158/2540.
Defendant owned steel poles and netting Golf Driving Range, which is structural error and not standard theoretically the impact of the storm when the storm plain as plain can occur naturally makes. steel frame and mesh construction, which fell over the defects, which are warehouse stock of the Corporation plc. The plaintiff-insurance has been damaged defendants are liable under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434, paragraph one The fire insurance policy stated that the insurance coverage has been expanded by the loss or damage arising from wind storms, etc. wet with water when the storm was the steel poles and netting of a warehouse collapsed over the defendant. Because the stock of the Corporation plc. The plaintiff's insurance on the wet rain, which the defendant owned buildings are responsible for when the plaintiff to pay compensation to the Corporation plc. Then the plaintiff would enter subrogation of the Corporation plc. Which is the defendant, a third party under the Civil and Commercial Section. 880, paragraph one
Judgement of the Supreme Court 75/2538.
Pine beside the road where municipal defendants a responsible condition decayed hollow, despite the rain and thunder on the scene, but it was raining slightly and moderately in the short and the speed of the wind as wind speed normal. The pine has fallen over the plaintiff's car is not due to force majeure due to weather conditions, but a defect of a defendant who refused to overthrow or shore pine to prevent damage to others that a defendant is liable. Damages to the plaintiff because of disability, life can not be controlled by the nervous system and digestive efficiency of sexual interest and can not walk to the damages that the plaintiff suffer from lifelong disability as a non-monetary damages either. two cases due to different events separated by reason of the liability separately, as each event has.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 28/2534.
Plaintiff to build shopping centers and commercial buildings for rent and sale, it is necessary to build roads within shopping centers and commercial buildings so that people living in the center and the general public as a way out. For the purpose of trade operations of the rental or purchase of commercial buildings. And the plaintiff was held when guarding the roads into the shopping center all the time. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to use the roads and sidewalks into the building next to the hotel where the defendant the plaintiff's land. Shows that the plaintiff still take possession of the area shopping centers are not intended to raise the roads and footpaths shall be public. When the defendant built building intrusion and damage to the road. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue Defendant created a high street front defendants other than the road within the center of the plaintiff. Cars and cement blocks to prevent water flowing into the street in front of Hotel defendant Act for the benefit of one party defendant without regard to the suffering of others who live in the center of the plaintiff. Road building and the defendant to the plaintiff's high street. And the plaintiff also responsible for all roads within the center of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has been damaged by the actions of the defendant. Defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 4128/2528.
Even under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434 is subject to the rule or the owner of the tree requires compensation for damage caused by violation of any information on this subject, but in the case where the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Plaintiff's damages caused by defects in the coconut plantation or sustain that cause damage to the plaintiff, the defendant the plaintiff has the burden to prove to the court to see that Why the falling coconut trees and causing damage to the plaintiff caused by defects in growing or sustaining the defendant's right to find that the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove that no
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1438/2526.
The plaintiff sued the defendant liable for damages arising from the house or building of the defendant. Do not provide liability for infringement of plaintiff's employees do not have to attest to the status of employee involvement. Listening in on the fact that the damage caused by drainage from the hotel roof damaged, defective or inadequate maintenance. Defendant who is also a ruler and owner of the hotel roof and drain it. Therefore liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff insurers. Damages to the insured, which has been used by the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434 in conjunction with Section 880.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 2140/2520.
Defendant and the defendant's building for rent three floors of the building, but the defendant also is home to some of the defendant company and the offices of the defendant. Defendant is considered to dominate the building of the defendant. If the plaintiff's damages occurred because of the defendant's construction of the building damaged, defective or inadequate maintenance. Defendant who is also a ruler and owner of the building needs to use the compensation to the plaintiff.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1028/2505.
Defendants are the plaintiff tenant cultivated land of the temple housing the defendant has neglected to live in the mango tree that is based on the land lease defendant sprawling homes to cover the plaintiff. Cause the plaintiff has been damaged. The plaintiff shall have the power to sue for infringement and damages the defendant was under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 1201/2502.
The defendant is a municipal function, which will be performed ignore. That is, provided the tank is filled with ground floor before the open road the car has passed. Also appeared. The defendant did not provide what is well hamper a Dud flag for people to look passed. And at night did not provide the lamp brightness as appropriate. Defendant would have already seen that it is dangerous to cars and people traveling back and forth very well be left to live like that. Cause the plaintiff's car and drive people to the edge of this pond and damaged more The following shall be considered as negligence of the defendant to the plaintiff received. Damage the defendant liable for compensation to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court 1358 - 1359/2496.
Building owners are trying to repair his building to be damaged However, tenants in buildings that dominate the block. Not out of the building. It will not be fixed. Building owners are building for sale to the defendant. When it comes to the defendant. Defendant was also trying to find a way to prevent the demolition dangers can arise. But the lessee defendants would interfere with former singer with the Bureau of such district. But the district is unable to get help. Besides, the lessee has to recognize also that if the District for any damage caused by tenants will be responsible for themselves. But then, tenants have not managed treatment dispel To prevent any danger in not Would leave. Building until the walls break down the building over the plaintiff's damages as the defendant, the owner of the destroyed building. Need not responsible for any damage incurred as provided in Civil and Commercial Code, Section 434.
Judgement of the Supreme Court 636/2485.
Kapok tree roots that are damaged by poor base and upright stems not waver through the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff told the defendant was aware of the damage. Management did not prevent in any way Kapok tree crushed when the plaintiff damages housing. Even as the storm or not even. The defendant is liable.
