25 Cdo 1943/2006

The plaintiff involved in this case is a women called V. Š. represented by a barrister. The
defendant involved is a Czech town called N. n. H..

The dispute between the two parties is mainly based on neighbour’s duties. The defendant demolished
a house next to a plaintiff house. After few years the plaintiff perimeter wall felt down.
Plaintiff claimed that the crash of the wall is defendant fault. Whereas the defendant claimed that
he did what he should and could and that the later crash of the wall is not his fault.

Firstly the lower court held that the town had to pay the amount of 187 441 kč. After that the
town, the defendant, appealed and the court of Appeal cancelled the lower court ruling. The
plaintiff was not satisfied with this judgement and she appealed to a Supreme Court. The Supreme
court ruled that the lower court should again consider if the defendant really had done what he
should have done to protect the plaintiff house , and cancelled the holding of the Court of
Appeals. And thus the lower court did what the Supreme Court ruled. Subsequently this court
investigated what the defendant made for protecting neighbour´s house and made a decision that the
defendant should pay the amount of 46 860 kč.  As it was only his fault from one quarter, there
were other circumstances as winter, wind etc. Then both parties appealed again to The Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismisses the legal action and held that the plaintiff should pay
expenses. The plaintiff made again an appeal to Supreme Court. Finally The Supreme court decided to
agree with the Court of Appeals.

The question raised by this case is for how long after the demolition should the defendant ensure
the neighbour´s house.

The Supreme court held that the plaintiff should pay the amount of 19 498 kč for the expenses.

The Court reasoned that the felt of the perimeter wall was not defendant fault. This crash happened
after five years from demolition. During the demolition the defendant secure the neighbour´s house
as the law order. The Court found out that there were other reasons like influence of the winters
that passed and also the wind. The Court as well declare that the owner, the plaintiff,  did not
care properly of the house as in the mean time felt down another perimeter wall  from that house
from another side of the house.