[ad_1]
When an infant causes floods in the bathroom of his home, his parents do not automatically have to stand up for the damage. They would be responsible only if they violated their duty to supervise the child. This has been clarified by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf. In the specific case, the court refused a breach corresponding to the obligation. Motto: Parents of a three and a half year old child do not engage their duty if their child is asleep alone, then gets up unobserved, goes to the bathroom and causes damage. water in the bathroom (1965, in the bathroom: Too much paper, too much water
In this particular case, the three-and-a-half-year-old son was asleep with a radio play. and 20 hours he had gone unnoticed and had gone to the restroom.He used such amounts of toilet paper as the drain was clogged.There was also another problem: in Because of the nature of the toilet flush button, it could easily be caught if it was not used in a specific way.This also happened and after the The use of the toilet by the child ran continuously from the water.It spilled onto the floor and eventually dripped from the ceiling. the apartment below.
Damages of more than 15,000 euros were initially paid by the home insurance. Part of the money that she wanted to get replaced by the mother of the child or by their liability insurance. In his opinion, the mother had violated his parental authority over the boy that night in the apartment
The judges explore the limits of supervision
The district court and now the regional superior court saw no failure to their mother. Reason: The required degree of supervision has been achieved. In a closed apartment, a three year old does not need to be constantly under observation. It would be sufficient for the person under surveillance to be within earshot. In addition, if necessary nocturnal equipment to the toilet should not be supervised directly. Absolute security was not required. Full supervision would not be necessary, especially if it impeded a reasonable development of the child. This is particularly true for the learning process in the face of hazards. The Federal Supreme Court had already ruled in 2009 (ref: VI ZR 199/08).
Balance between learning and control in individual cases
The Higher Regional Court continued on the specific case: The peculiarities of the irrigation button that does not always work properly to any other criticism . Admittedly, the risk of damage has been essentially increased accordingly. However, this risk should be accepted in favor of the process of learning the child. The child must be able to learn how to use the household toilets naturally and daily. In this case, the snap of the flush button does not usually result in any risk that goes beyond a simple increase in water consumption. The situation in the bathroom was not so dangerous with the flush button that the parents would never have had to let their child use the toilet alone or had to check their condition after each use toilets. Such coverage would no longer do justice to the state of development of the three and a half year old child. Thus, the court in its decision of reference on the factual and legal situation in the concrete case.
Source link
