Climbed into a supermarket sign - who would respond if there was an accident?

The dangerous adventure of Pauliaus Samoška, who surprised many by climbing a signboard of a shopping centre building, ended successfully. But not all such adventures succeed. Lawyers remind us that such careless actions can lead to risks to life and serious injuries, which are the reason why the victims themselves go to court and claim compensation for material and non-material damages from the owner of the building.

According to AVOCAD attorney-at-law Mantas Baigis, in Lithuania the liability of the owner of buildings is strictly regulated by legislation, which provides that the owner (manager) of these objects must compensate for the damage caused by the collapse of buildings, structures, equipment or other constructions, including roads, or by other defects thereof, unless he/she proves that exceptions provided for in the legislation are made - that the damage is caused by an act of God or the wilfulness or gross negligence of the injured party.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania has consistently held that the general rule is that the owner of a building, i.e. the person who owns the building, is liable for the damage caused by defects in the building without fault. The Court has clarified that the legislation establishes 'strict liability', i.e. liability without fault, which means that the application of this rule requires the establishment of the fact of possession of the structure referred to in the law which has collapsed or is otherwise defective, of the causing of the damage to the person, which is also deemed to be an unlawful act, and of the causal link between the collapse of the structure or other defects and the damage caused, without, however, establishing the fault of the person in charge. Owners of buildings must bear the risk and pay for the damage caused, even if they have taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due care and diligence to prevent the damage from occurring, but it has occurred nonetheless.

Explaining how the above regulation works in practice, Mantas Baigys notes that in one civil case it was established that a person attempted to climb onto a locked balcony of a building through a nearby window, and eventually fell out of the balcony, sustaining serious injuries - fractures of the arms, a bruised head, a broken leg, and bruising of internal organs.

The owner of the building argued in the case that the victim was at fault because he had taken all the necessary safety precautions, even removing the handles from the balcony door to prevent anyone from entering this dangerous part of the building. In contrast, the victim argued that it was the property owner who was negligent, failed to take proper care of his property, failed to clean the dangerous balcony and directly contributed to the accident.

In the end, according to the lawyer, the long-running dispute was settled and it was found that the victim, aware that the door to the balcony was locked and that direct access to the balcony was not possible, was extremely careless in climbing out of the window of an adjacent room and was responsible for the damage.

"In the case of Paulius Samoška, if someone tried to replicate this extremely dangerous action and, for example, fell while climbing the structure (for example, if the structure was not designed to withstand the climb), each circumstance would have to be assessed on an individual basis," commented the AVOCAD lawyer.

For example, although access to the structure was objectively difficult, and Paul had to use a ladder as high as 5 metres, it was not locked. Nor, as the recording states, are there any warning signs stating that climbing is prohibited, so that Paul reasonably believed, as he states, that climbing was permitted.

The courts hearing the case would therefore have a lot of work to do in assessing these and other circumstances, such as whether the owner of the building did everything possible to prevent the accident and whether he or she exercised due care. The conduct of the victim would also have to be assessed in the same way. "In this case, Paul Samoška deliberately took the extremely risky step of climbing the structure without any equipment or permission. If another person were to do the same, it is likely that the court would find it difficult to ignore such obvious negligence. Such behaviour becomes a strong argument that could in principle exclude the liability of the owner of the structure," says AVOCAD's lawyer.