The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) was tasked with determining whether a landlord of residential property is obligated, within the scope of their duty of care, to conduct a regular general inspection of electrical wiring and appliances within tenants' apartments.
The plaintiff is claiming damages from the defendant, his landlord, due to a fire. On July 20, 2006, a fire occurred in the kitchenette area of the rental apartment adjacent to the plaintiff's residence. The plaintiff alleges that the fire was caused by a technical defect involving a short circuit in the extractor hood area. He has claimed damages amounting to €2,630, plus interest and reimbursement of pre-litigation legal costs, for damage to his property.
The District Court partially granted the claim. However, upon the defendant's appeal, the Regional Court dismissed the entire claim. Through the permitted appeal (Revision), the plaintiff seeks to reinstate the District Court's judgment.
The VIII Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, responsible inter alia for residential tenancy law, ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to a claim for damages against the defendant landlord for the losses incurred to his property as a result of the fire in the neighboring apartment. The defendant was not obligated to subject the electrical wiring and installations in the apartments he rented to a regular inspection by an electrician without specific cause or indication of defects. While the landlord does have a contractual ancillary duty to maintain the rented property in a safe condition, this duty generally extends to all parts of the building. Therefore, the landlord must promptly rectify any known defects that could pose a danger to the rental apartments. However, within the scope of his duty of care, he is not required to conduct a regular general inspection. While in individual cases, special circumstances, such as unusual or repeated malfunctions, might provide cause not only to rectify an immediately apparent defect but also to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the entire electrical installation, no such circumstances were found in this case.
The Federal Court of Justice therefore dismissed the appeal.
Judgment of the BGH dated October 15, 2008 – VIII ZR 321/07
Lower Courts: District Court Nordhorn – Judgment dated March 29, 2007 – 3 C 179/07 – Regional Court Osnabrück – Judgment dated august 8, 2007 – 1 S 213/07 Karlsruhe, October 15, 2008
Source: Press release of the Press Office of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) No. 192/2008 dated October 15, 2008, Herrenstr. 45 a, 76133 Karlsruhe, Tel. 0721-159-5013, Fax. 0721-159-5501,
Email: pressestelle@bgh.bund.de.
Comment by Goldberg Attorneys-at-Law:
Although this BGH decision explicitly pertains only to electrical wiring and appliances within an apartment, the principles outlined in this decision must, as clarified by the BGH, be applied analogously to all parts of the building and thus to all 'sources of danger' within the house, including gas and water pipes. This implies that a landlord is not obligated to have a rental apartment regularly inspected by specialists without specific cause.
This also offers advantages for the tenant. If the landlord were obligated to have a rental apartment regularly inspected by specialists, they could demand reimbursement from the tenant for the resulting costs as part of the utility bill. This would consequently lead to a significant increase in utility costs.
Goldberg Attorneys at Law, Wuppertal-Solingen 2008
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M.(Information Law)
m.ullrich@goldberg.de
