Mandate for unsnowed pavement. Even 1500 gold penalties

Article 117 of the Code of Offence is simply a key provision for maintaining the order of immovable property. A individual who neglects his responsibilities in the field of cleanliness and order in a given area or does not comply with the recommendations issued by the authorities liable for ensuring good wellness and combating infectious diseases shall be subject to fines up to PLN 1500 or reprimand.

This sanction is the advanced limit of the penalty, but in fact its dimension may vary, usually lower. In addition to the specified penalty, there is besides an crucial issue related to civilian damages in the event of accidents involving passersby. Many people face this problem erstwhile there is negligence that leads to unfortunate events in the property.

Act – the municipality removes snow and ice

According to the Law on Purity and Order in municipalities, local governments are obliged to guarantee cleanliness in their territory and to make the essential conditions for maintaining order. This means not only avoiding contamination in the streets and squares, but besides removing mud, snow, ice and another pollutants from pavements, for which property owners are responsible.

On the another hand, there is besides an work to remove the pavement by the owners of the property, especially erstwhile the pavement is adjacent straight to the plot. It is crucial to point out that this does not include a situation where a private property is separated from the pavement by a city lawn or erstwhile the pavement serves as a parking lot.

It is worth noting the crucial issue of the green belt. If there is simply a green belt not owned by the owner between the sidewalk belonging to the municipality and the plot, then there is no work to remove this section of the pavement.

The civilian consequences of these provisions are crucial due to the fact that the work to take care of the pavement rests on both the municipality and the citizen. The municipality may be treated as an overseer, which means that if the owner of the property does not snow the pavement, there may be a anticipation of claims for damages in the event of, for example, an accident of a passer-by injured person. These claims may be directed against the municipality, the property owner or even both, depending on circumstances and negligence.

Compensation for not snowing the pavement – from PLN 20,000 to PLN80,000

Judicial decisions from different cities and dates offering compensation to victims in accidents on pavements show how crucial it is to keep these places safe, especially during winter.

An example of the 2020 judgement of the Warsaw territory Court reminds us of a female who suffered from a fracture of the lower leg due to the fall caused by the mediocre condition of the pavement. It received compensation of PLN 80,678 and interest.

In turn, the judgement from the Łódź territory Court of 2021 tells the communicative of a man who slipped close a dumpster and suffered serious injuries, including a central dislocation of the hip joint. It was rewarded with PLN 78,482 and additionally obliged the perpetrators to monthly pension.

Another case, this time from the territory Court in Piotrków Trybunalski, active a broken ankle on an icy pavement. Here the victim received compensation of PLN 65,000.

The judicial decision from Gdynia in 2022 afraid a plaintiff who suffered a fracture of the bones of her hand after slipping on a frozen puddle next to the block. It was obliged to receive PLN 34,700 and interest.

The last example, the judgement of the territory Court in Człuchów, tells the communicative of the plaintiff, who for a painful fall on a slippery pavement received compensation of PLN 31,752 for breaking the bones of the lower leg and the ankle joint in the left leg.

These judicial decisions show how crucial it is to keep safety on pavements, especially during the winter season, erstwhile weather conditions may pose a hazard to passers-by. Their consequences for the victims item the request for adequate maintenance and care for urban infrastructure to avoid accidents.

When and how to clear snow

A conviction is frequently cited here The ultimate Court of 26 July 2017 (Event III CSK 356/16). The court stated:

In conditions of melting snow and precipitation in winter, it is not realistic to anticipate from the owner adjacent to the sidewalk the property to keep continuous, uninterrupted cleanliness in this area. The provisions of the Act on the maintenance of order in municipalities do not specify the frequency of specified actions – this is the consequence of the judgement of the Provincial Administrative Court in Poznań in 2013. The property owner must, on the another hand, keep due diligence, showing that these activities were systematically undertaken, even if their effect was not lasting.

In the judgement of the territory Court of N. of 2016, I.C. requested that the amount of PLN 51.131.93 with statutory interest from the defendants R. K. and D. K., besides demanding the determination of liability for the consequences of the accident of January 4, 2013, which could have been revealed to her in the future.

According to the actual findings of this judgment, the defendants were owners of the built-up property in N., adjacent to the sidewalk at S. On that day, after 8:00 p.m., the plaintiff returned from the cinema accompanied by her daughter and granddaughter. The rain mixed with snow was raining, and there was snow mud on the sidewalk, making it hard to move. The conditions were not so dangerous as to require cover for a plaintiff who walked alone in the back. However, the building and snowshade restricted the passage. The daughter and granddaughter passed smoothly, while the plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle. She was diagnosed with a fracture of the L1 core, resulting in her two-week infirmary stay and long-term care after discharge. The plaintiff demands damages of PLN 40,000 and damages of PLN 11.131,93.

S. Street is 1 of the main arteries in N., which translates into dense traffic on pavements. During the winter period, the defendants took care to keep the sidewalk mobile, snowing it and sprinkled salt or sand, depending on the weather conditions. Winter 2012/2013 was mild and the amount of snow was small. During the Christmas and fresh Year's period, defendants regularly cared about shoveling the pavement off their property.

The territory Court concluded that the plaintiff did not show the essential liability for the defendants to be held accountable to them, and thus a causal link to the detriment. It incorrectly pointed out that the defendants had breached the work under Article 5(1)(4) of the Act.