Võidu prospekt 16: court refused compensation after a collision with a warning post

The car damage was accepted, but the court found no fault by the association in installing the warning post. The damages claim was dismissed.

The court dismissed driver XX’s claim against the apartment association Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 16 for damage after striking a warning post in the courtyard. It accepted the car damage and its link to the collision but found that the association had exercised the required care. The claimant sought the 190-euro insurance excess, the part of repairs paid by the owner, plus accrued and continuing late-payment interest. XX alleged that the metal post installed beside a collapsed section of surfacing was hard to see and did not meet warning-sign requirements. The association objected that the post warned of a dangerous spot, had reflective strips and was visible in advance. The court considered the association’s liability as manager of the shared grounds. It separately examined property damage, causation, unlawfulness and fault. The fact that the post damaged the car did not complete that examination. From the photographs, the court considered the post sufficiently tall and visibly marked with reflective tape. A driver proceeding carefully through the courtyard could have seen it and stopped. In this case, the court considered that the rules cited by the claimant did not require a standard warning sign at that location. It found the association’s conduct consistent with expected care and did not establish the fault required for recovery. The court also refused to obtain courtyard video footage: the collision was undisputed, footage would not show visibility from inside the car and the association stated it no longer existed. The judgment of 4 March 2022 dismissed the entire claim and imposed costs on the claimant, with separate quantification. The court did not deny the car damage; refusal concerns the conditions for the association’s liability.

Refuse to obtain the video recording and dismiss XX’s damages claim against the association in full. The claimant bears costs, to be quantified separately after the judgment becomes final.