Civil case in Munich: Duplex parker sues co-user – without success – Munich

In larger cities, parking spaces are usually hotly contested these days. Lucky are those who can park their cars in an underground garage. However, if the parking space is in a duplex garage, problems can sometimes arise. For example, if the space available on the lifting platform is far too small for certain car models. Or if one of the two vehicles is not parked properly on it and there is a risk that it will be damaged when the lifting device is operated. How to decide in such a case – this is what a civil court at the Munich District Court had to deal with.

The following happened: The plaintiff in the case is the owner of an Audi A6 and uses the lower floor of a duplex garage. The defendant uses the upper floor. When he wanted to get to his car, he lowered the lifting platform. However, this process was accompanied by a clearly audible scraping sound, which is why the defendant immediately stopped the platform and drove it back up. He contacted the owner of the Audi on the same day.

Both men then went to the underground car park that evening to inspect the situation. The defendant started the lifting platform again. The result: the antenna on the roof of the Audi A6 was smashed and the roof dented. The driver of the Audi had had enough and sued the garage user for damages totaling 4894.60 euros.

When he lowered the lifting platform in the morning and heard a scraping noise, he should have stopped the system immediately, said the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant started the lifting device during the inspection in the evening without his consent. Not true, said the defendant, pointing out that the Audi either did not fit in the parking space or had not been parked properly.

The district court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant. If he could be blamed at all, it would be that he could have recognized that the Audi could be damaged by lowering the lifting device. However, the court made it clear that there was “no evidence whatsoever” to support this assumption. The defendant also had no “obligation to check whether a vehicle parked on the lifting platform had been parked “properly” before operating the lifting device, the judgment continued.

With regard to the second lifting operation in the evening in the underground car park, it was also not proven that the defendant operated the system without the plaintiff’s consent. Finally, the district court found that not even an expert called in was able to determine what damage to the plaintiff’s Audi was caused by “what movement” of the lifting device. With regard to the lifting operation in the morning, the defendant was “undoubtedly not at fault”. Even if one assumes that the lifting operation in the evening took place without the plaintiff’s consent, “it is not possible to determine what specific damage was caused by this.”

The judgment of the Munich District Court (case no. 223 C 19925/23) is final.

source site

Related Articles