Trees sprout in spring, and if things go unluckily, they can also fall: namely into the roof of a Munich woman’s car. This went to the district court because it was of the opinion that the parking garage operator, on whose property the tree was located, had neglected its security and tree care obligations. But the court didn’t see it that way, and now the woman is stuck with the damages and costs.
That day, the plaintiff had parked her car on a public street in downtown Munich, opposite the parking garage. A violent storm swept through the city at night and around 4 a.m. a deciduous tree on the parking lot site toppled across the street and its crown onto the roof of the car.
The next day, the driver saw a scene of destruction. The vehicle suffered “an economic total loss,” she told the court. She sued the parking garage operator for payment of almost 2,900 euros. In her opinion, the whole thing wouldn’t have happened if the parking garage operator had regularly checked the stability of the tree.
Naturally, the defendants saw this completely differently. The severe thunderstorm and the violent gusts of wind caused the deciduous tree to fall unpredictably, she argued. No signs were overlooked or misunderstood that would have indicated that the tree was ill.
The court agreed with the parking garage operator’s opinion. The plaintiff would have had to prove that the people from the parking garage had violated their duty to ensure traffic safety. For liability to apply, the woman would have had to prove that the tree was previously damaged or that the parking garage operators should have recognized this. The plaintiff did present the court with photos of the remains of the tree. However, the fallen giant was only photographed from a distance; “no damage or signs of illness can be seen in these images,” the court stated. And the woman had not examined the tree on the “day of the crime” to see whether it was really sick. “It is not even known whether the tree broke or was uprooted,” the court said.
On the other hand, the defendant had proven that the trees on the parking lot site were regularly checked, watered and trimmed. Apart from that, the plaintiff would also have had to prove that the damage was visible when the trees were monitored.
In the end, the court found that even a healthy tree can break or be uprooted in a storm. And according to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, “the abstract tree danger must be accepted as natural.” The judgment of the Munich District Court is legally binding.