Flooding of the flat – individual liable and harm (examples from the case law)

Responsibility for flooding the flat on a responsibility basis

The work for flooding the apartment, in accordance with the resolution of the composition of the 7 ultimate Court judges of 19 February 2013 the ref. act III CZP 63/12, is based on the rule of guilt.

Thus, it is for the injured organization to bear the burden of proof not only of flooding, but above all of the fact that the event was caused by an act or omission by the perpetrator of the incident, and besides of proving that the act or omission was committed by the perpetrator.

According to Article 415 k.c., those who, due to their faults, have done harm to others are obliged to remedy it.

Conditions of work for flooding the apartment

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 415 k.c., the following conditions shall apply:

• the existence of injury,
• the occurrence of the event for which the act makes the individual responsible, and
• the causal link between the unlawful act and the harm in that form that it is simply a specified consequence of it.

It should be pointed out that the burden of proving all these circumstances is on the injured organization in rule (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Krakow – First civilian Division of 7 June 2017, act mention I ACa 65/17).

It is so up to the flood to show that the flat was flooded by an act or omission of the defendant, and the harm resulting from that act or omission was caused by the suspect (yes: Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 5 September 2019.).

Flooding of the flat and hazard liability

In accordance with Article 433 of the civilian Code, the individual who occupies the area is liable for harm caused by the removal, discharge or fall of any object from the room, unless the harm has been caused by force majeure or solely by the victim or by a 3rd organization for whom the occupied area is not liable and whose action could not be prevented.

This provision establishes the alleged liability on a hazard basis for harm resulting from the discharge, discharge or fall of an object.

The question, however, is whether this provision is applicable in situations where lower housing locations are flooded due to water leakage (e.g. due to the unscrewing of taps, water spills in a bathtub or sink, water tube damage) in an flat above flooded premises.

The ultimate Court in the aforementioned resolution of the 7 judges of 19 February 2013 No. III of the CZP 63/12 analysed the grounds for work for flooding someone's flat as a consequence of water spilling from the premises located on a higher storey to the premises located on a lower storey and a different situation, and the spillage of water from the building, which justifies the application of Article 433 and the rule of hazard to the liability of the perpetrator.

In principle, the ultimate Court has confirmed a single line of case law according to which Article 433 of the civilian Code does not apply to liability for harm resulting from flooding the premises below from the advanced storey.

The jurisprudence so takes the view that it is not possible to extend the scope of enhanced liability and Article 433 of the Code should only be limited to situations expressly regulated therein. This was besides the position of the ultimate Court in its judgement of 5 March 2002, I CKN 1156/99, TSO of 2003 No. 1, item 5), in which the court stated that Article 433 k.c. did not apply to liability for the harm caused by the spillage of water in a building located above to a premises located below. This judgement is simply a confirmation of the long-standing jurisprudence of the ultimate Court (so also: resolution of the ultimate Court of 12 February 1969, ref. Act III CZP 3/69, OSNC 1969 No. 7-8, item 130).

A different position is taken by the doctrine, where it is pointed out that, taking into account the ratio legis of the solution to Article 433 of the Code, which decided to adopt a strict rule of responsibility, it should be considered that 1 of the events causing liability under Article 433 of the Code of civilian Procedure should besides be considered as 1 of the events causing liability under Article 433 of the Code of civilian Code. Tom I. Comment. Art. 1-44910, Wyd. 10, Warsaw 2020; K. Osajda (ed.), civilian Code. Commentary, Issues 27, 2020; E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski (ed.), civilian Code. Comment. Edition 9, Warsaw 2019).

District Court for Łódź-Vidzew in Łódź in the judgement of 7 December 2021. He stressed, however, that the individual liable for harm caused by the expulsion, discharge or fall of any object from the premises is the 1 who actually owns it in his own interest, i.e. he occupies it on the basis of any legal title, specified as property, rent, cooperative right to the premises, etc., or even without specified a title, even in bad religion (so: ultimate Court judgement of 15 September 1959, act No. IV CR 1071/58, OS 1961, No. 6, item 159). Without doubt, therefore, if we divide the view of the doctrine as to the application of the provision of Article 433 k.c. besides in the case of flooding of the flat below, the owner of the premises would be liable for the harm on a hazard basis.

Guilty over the flooding of the apartment

The doctrine assumes that guilt occurs erstwhile the perpetrator of the harm can be accused of nonsubjective and subjective misconduct.

An nonsubjective component of guilt constitutes the alleged illegality understood as a contradiction of action or omission of the perpetrator with the full legal order:

• with a circumstantial provision (infringement of circumstantial orders or prohibitions),
• with the principles of social intercourse or
• with another standards commonly utilized and accepted in a given society (e.g. principles of fair trading or good faith).

The subjective component of guilt, on the another hand, concerns the attitude of the will and awareness of the acting entity to its act. The blame can so be attributed to a circumstantial offender only if there are grounds for a negative assessment of his behaviour from the point of view of both conditions. Consequently, a subjective component of guilt may constitute intent (direct intent or eventual intent) or an alleged involuntaryness (impropriety, negligence) (yes: Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 5 September 2019.).

The responsibility of the perpetrator of the harm (inundation) may depend not only on a circumstantial action but besides on the omission of that entity. The illegality of the omission occurs erstwhile there was an work to act, there was a prohibition of omission or a prohibition of bringing about an effect which could have been brought by omission (yes: Margaret Serwach in: Wine as a regulation of civilian liability and an exemption from the work to make good the damage).

He said the same thing. Court of Appeal in Warsaw in judgement of 22 November 2012 Ref. Act I ACa 637/12 stating that a responsibility occurs erstwhile the individual liable for the harm can be alleged to be both nonsubjective and subjective inadequacy. The nonsubjective component of guilt is fulfilled by any inappropriate conduct, i.e. contrary to the provisions of subject law, or ethical principles, or at all, with the work of caution that all individual in society should respect, in order to prevent others from harming.

The issue of negligence in flooding the premises

In accordance with the wording of Article 355(1) k.c., the debtor is obliged to exercise the general care required in relation to the kind afraid (due diligence). As indicated in the doctrine, The attribution of negligence to a individual shall be justified only if the individual has behaved in a certain place and time in a way which deviates from the appropriate standard of due diligence.

The pattern of due diligence shall be nonsubjective and abstract. In practice, its application consists in setting an appropriate model, setting the optimal treatment under the conditions in question, appropriately concrete and socially approved, and then comparing the behaviour of the debtor with specified a set standard. However, it is not only the failure to comply with the set model that determines whether, in the light of circumstantial circumstances, a individual can be accused of not having due diligence in carrying out his duties, but besides empirically conditioned anticipation and the work to foretell appropriate consequences of behavior.

However, a measurement of the debtor’s conduct, in fact relating to a measurement of due diligence, should not be formulated at the level of unenforceable obligations, detached from the overall life experience and circumstantial circumstances (yes: Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 5 September 2019.).

The territory Court of Słupsk in its judgement of 6 November 2015. stated that, as part of the insurance of civilian liability, it is essential to find the responsibility for the harm caused, i.e. to show at least the slightest degree of negligence, which caused the water to break out, e.g.:

• not twisting taps,
• negligence of water-sewage equipment in good method condition, etc.

Uninvolved flooding

The Kłodzko territory Court in its judgement of 4 February 2020, Case I C 1231/19 concluded that the plaintiff's claim that the leak of the PVC tube draining the water from the bathtub in the defendant's flat was not worthy of consideration. As established on the basis of the evidence provided, leakage occurred due to degradation of the rubber safety seal.

The sewage installation in the defendant's flat functioned decently and unfailingly for six years. It is hard to admit that the suspect can counter specified an event. The specified fact that the water was flooded by the defendant's premises cannot constitute the defendant's liability for the damage.

Nor can he be held liable for the degradation of the rubber seal, which remained outside the scope of his control, and at the same time there was no basis to presume that the sewage installation was incorrectly installed or operated by the defendant. The plaintiff did not show that the defendant's conduct was unlawful and criminal, i.e. that it was contrary to the law, reprimanded or even objectively incorrect, resulting in damage.

That court so concluded that, on the basis of the evidence in the case, the defendant’s liability cannot be established in the light of Article 415 kc and consequently there is no basis for considering the claimant’s claims under Article 828(1) kc.

Obligation of the owner of the premises to prevent flooding

In the context of liability for flooding in accordance with Article 415 kc, the owners of the dwelling are undoubtedly required to keep their installations, including water and sewage installations in an appropriate method condition (yes: ultimate Court resolution of 12.02.1969, ref. III CZP 3/69; ultimate Court judgement of 11.10.1980, ref. I CR 295/80, ultimate Court judgement of 5.03/2002, ref. I CKN 1156/99, ultimate Court resolution of 18 July 2012, ref. III CZP 41/12).

It should be pointed out that the duties of defendants as owners (users) of residential premises are surely wider than specified maintenance, as they are obliged to take action to prevent events resulting in the demolition of their premises and neighbouring premises, as shortly as possible to establish the existence of implementing defects in the area of installation and to prevent it from being utilized safely until the defects have been resolved. (Yes: ultimate Court judgement of 26.11.2004, No. V CK 253/04).

In particular, the defendants, as owners of the premises, were required to carry out all essential activities to guarantee the appropriate method condition, including periodic inspections of the water and sewage installations and to immediately remedy the failure, if essential by professional operators (yes: Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 22 November 2012.).

Liability of the tenant for flooding

In accordance with the general provision of Article 662(2) k.c. small expenditure combined with average usage of things burden the tenant. According to Article 681 k.c., tiny investments which charge the tenant of the premises include in particular:

• minor repair of floors, doors and windows,
• painting of walls, floors and interior of entrance doors, as well as
• minor repairs of method installations and equipment to guarantee the usage of light, heating of premises, inflows and outflows.

Therefore, District Court for Łódź-Vidzew in Łódź in the judgement of 7 December 2021. concluded that if the drain was blocked due to inadequate maintenance, the liability for the harm would lie with the tenant.

Application for flooding of the flat

Where the premises are insured, it is essential to study the harm to the insurer as shortly as possible. It is crucial to establish the causes of flooding and the degree of the harm caused by the flooding to produce evidence in the form of photographs/video recordings. If the insurer considers that the injured individual has contributed to or increased damage, the work to remedy it shall be reduced accordingly. *

A self-collection of evidence is peculiarly applicable in the absence of insurance and so the request to search redress from its direct perpetrator.

Means of repairing the harm caused by flooding

As provided for in Article 363(1) k.c., compensation for harm should be made, according to the choice of the injured party, either by restoring the condition of the erstwhile individual or by paying the corresponding monetary sum. However, if it is impossible to reconstruct the erstwhile condition, or if it entails excessive difficulties or costs for the obliged person, the injured person's claim is limited to money.

Recovery by payment of a certain monetary amount is justified by 2 types of situation. First, it takes place primarily erstwhile natural restitution is impossible for actual or legal reasons, secondly, it appears erstwhile Restoration of the erstwhile condition entails excessive difficulties or costs for the obliged person.

In the event of a dispute as to the existence of circumstances determining the limitation of the compensation claim to a cash benefit, the decision shall be taken by the court, which should apply to the assessment of those excessive difficulties or costs economical criteria, enabling the balance of interests of both parties. (yes: K. Pietrzykowski (ed.), civilian Code. T. I. Commentary. Art. 1–449 10, Wyd. 10, Warszawa 2020).

Amount of compensation for flooding

As provided for in Article 361(1) kc, the individual liable for compensation shall be liable only for the average consequences of the act or omission from which the harm occurred. This provision expresses the rule of causality, but limited to cases of average causality (normal consequences). This solution is simply a manifestation of the Polish concept of a relation that combines harm and its size with the event with which the Act binds the work to compensate (yes: K. Pietrzykowski (ed.), civilian Code. T. I. Commentary. Art. 1–449 10, Wyd. 10, Warszawa 2020).

The compensation shall be determined on the 1 hand by respecting the rule of full compensation and, on the another hand, by not exceeding the amount actually suffered by the injured person, so as to prevent it from being unduly enriched.

The harm must be understood as contrary to the will of the injured individual to the difference between his current property and the condition which would have occurred had there not been an event causing the harm (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 9 March 2021 – Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber of 9 March 2021 No. I NSNc 90/20).

Evidence in the flood compensation case

As mentioned, in the proceedings for damages based on Article 415 k.c., the general regulation of the process applies that the plaintiff should prove that his claims in relation to:

• the requested request in respect of the harm suffered,
• fault of the defendant
• the causal relation between them.

As far as these conditions are concerned, the plaintiff has the power to command by any means of evidence provided for in the civilian Procedure Code, which in turn requires the suspect to take an initiative to competition the evidence submitted.

It should be stressed that the ultimate Court has repeatedly expressed the view that the rule of the distribution of the burden of proof, as set out in Article 6(c), cannot be understood to mean that it is always, regardless of the circumstances of the case, for the plaintiff to have all the facts essential to resolve the dispute. If the claimant has demonstrated that the claim is correct, then the suspect shall bear the burden of proving the appearance and the circumstances justifying the rejection of the action. (yes, e.g. ultimate Court judgments of 12 May 2011 I PK 228/2010; of 10 June 2013 II PK 304/2012; of 20 April 1982 I CR 79/82)

Regional Court in Krakow in judgement of 25 April 2014 Ref. Act II Ca 351/14 concluded that another factual presumption in the civilian proceedings should be derived from the above finding. The reversal of the burden of proof may so take place on the basis of a presumption of fact or prima facie evidence. Proof by actual presumptions is not a means of proof in the strict sense of the word, but is simply a procedurally permitted method of command of facts based on another established facts, utilizing principles of logical reasoning and life experience.

It is so a substance of demonstrating the basis of the actual presumption. If that basis is demonstrated and the disputed fact is established on the basis of factual presumptions, then only Article 6 kc may apply as stating that the burden of proving the fact lies with the individual who derives legal effects from it. The consequences of this are then borne by the organization on whom the burden of proving the contrary lies.

As indicated in the caselaw, the alleged fact does not require either a message or command, but the claims and command require facts based on the actual presumption. It is besides assumed that the principles of experience play an crucial function in the construction of the actual presumption, alongside the principles of logic. In particular, the presumption of fact should not be contrary to those principles. (yes: ultimate Court ruling of 17 October 2000 I CKN 1196/98, non-publ.).

In this context, in the judgement referred to above of the Kraków territory Court, the court considered, as the basis for the presumption that the defendant’s installation of a water hose, which did not show that he was a qualified individual to do so, leading to the conclusion that the hose could have been defectively mounted and that could besides be the basis for the accident. For this reason, there was a reversal of the burden of proof that the individual from whom the injured individual claimed compensation was the burden of overturning the fact resulting from the presumption of fact (so also: ultimate Court judgement of 16 April 1986 I CR 34/86 OSPIKA 1987/5-6 item 125).

If, therefore, the defendants wanted to produce for themselves affirmative legal effects from the claim that they had taken good care to defend their neighbours from flooding, they should have demonstrated (in accordance with Article 6 k.c.) that the hose was not used, was decently mounted or that it was defective for reasons independent of them. Since, however, they did not study these facts and removed the hose before the trial was initiated, they were rightly charged by the Court of First Instance with the consequences of their omission.

Examples of flood case-law

In the Court of Appeal in Warsaw case number V ACa 450/19, where a hose has been broken twice to feed water to 2 different devices in the defendant's bathroom, the court found that:

• The plaintiff, who was the victim of the burden of proof of the defendant's liability, was obliged to show that the origin of the hose fracture was specified an act or omission of the suspect which deviated from the pattern of careful action in the circumstances of the case. It was so crucial to show that the plaintiff’s behaviour in both cases could be regarded as at least reckless or careless.
• Since the first flood occurred at a time erstwhile the suspect stayed out of the home for a long period of time due to a vacation, the fact that the suspect left the keys to her mother's apartment, who was in the flat almost daily, states that she kept due diligence in securing her apartment.
• Consider the defendant's action to make available to the cooperative the number of the individual taking care of the flat during his absence.
• It is impossible to accept that the suspect is besides obliged to turn the water vertically. Undoubtedly, specified conduct should be viewed as an expression extraordinary care of the owner of the premises in the circumstances of the case and as appropriate to the situation if the defendant, erstwhile leaving for a long period of time, leaves the flat closed, without access by 3rd parties.
• The defendant's parent appeared immediately after being notified of the flooding of the premises; in this situation it is impossible to charge the suspect with contributing, and even more so, causing harm due to the unjustified hold in the arrival of the defendant's mother.
• The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant, due to a deficiency of maintenance or incorrect maintenance by an unauthorised person, had failed to keep the water network in appropriate condition (in addition, the conclusions contained in the expert's opinion confirming that to the crack of the hose may happen for reasons completely independent of the owner of the premises, do not give grounds for attributing the defendant's responsibility for causing flooding the plaintiff's apartment),
• It was besides unfounded to claim that the defendant's parent was not the owner of the apartment, and that she was only temporarily staying in her daughter's apartment.

In turn Court of Appeal in Warsaw in judgement of 22 November 2012 Ref. Act I ACa 637/12 indicated:

• There is no uncertainty that the operation of the owner of the premises was reckless, namely that he did not mention the utilized hose in time, and earlier himself, without consulting the alleged professional entity, he chose, purchased and installed the object, which was consequently defective resulting in the injury.
• Circumstances raised by defendants in appeal that the suspect cannot be attributed to guilt due to the fact that the hose which broke was inactive on the warranty are not credible in the light of the evidence collected, in peculiar the expert's opinion, and besides in view of the defendant's conduct, which means that immediately after the incident, he removed the damaged hose. Furthermore, the suspect did not show the circumstances raised by him, as he did not submit, in the course of the proceedings, a decently damaged hose, or a acquisition invoice, which prevented the affirmative verification of his evidence on the subject.
• The plea of appeal relating to the question of the degree of the harm suffered and the absence of demonstration of the destroyed items to the experts should besides be regarded as missed. The territory Court, contrary to the claims of the defendants on the basis of clear and legible criteria, established the amount of the harm and provided detailed calculations. As a basis for the findings in this respect, the insurer's file on the resolution of the harm and the documents, opinions of experts and the accounts submitted by the reasons (where possible, the amounts in it were verified by the experts).

District Court for Łódź-Vidzew in Łódź in the judgement of 7 December 2021. concerning the actual situation in which the flooding caused the hose to break from the washing device and consequently the water to the premises located below, concluded that:

• The reason for the flooding does not mean that the water installation or the individual elements of the installation were in mediocre method condition due to negligence of the owner of the premises. The spillage of water and leakage from the washing device on the ground of the present case occurred not due to the obstruction of the drainage system, but due to the malfunctioning of the user. The plaintiff did not supply any evidence that the water installation at the defendant's premises was in mediocre method condition.

Regional Court in Krakow in judgement of 25 April 2014 Ref. Act II Ca 351/14 concluded that:

• From the rules of life experience it can be argued that the flooding of neighbour's dwellings respective times, even at intervals of respective years, regardless of the causes of these events, is at least atypical, alternatively than 1 which, with a certain amount of probability, repeats in reality and in the judgement of the territory Court demonstrates the widely understood negligence of the defendants.
• The fact that the evidence in the form of a hose has been removed and that there is no effort to advertise it besides leads to an application for negligence of defendants who, as the territory Court rightly pointed out, should have provided for the anticipation that a hose may be useful evidence in possible judicial proceedings.
• The defendants did not show the hose to be new. They simply claimed that it was periodically exchanged, but did not supply any evidence to this effect. It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff testified that he had seen the suspect and the hose looked old for a while. This fact besides affects the anticipation of accepting the thesis of negligence of defendants expressed in the absence of replacement of an old utilized hose.
• In the present case, the facts underlying the presumption were uncontested. The defendants admitted that they had already flooded the flat with reasons, they besides stated that the suspect was active in the installation of the hose, and after the accident they threw out the damaged hose without advertising it. The reason in turn claimed that the hose looked old. On specified a factual basis, the applicant was entitled to a responsibility of the defendants in negligence, as is besides evidenced by the repetition of the situation of flooding the flat of the reasons.

Calls for the injured organization to pay

Obligations resulting from unlawful acts arise on the date of the act and, therefore, do not indicate the time limit within which the debtor should make good the harm are counted as unlimited obligations. This work is due to the creditor's request for payment and so transforms the work without time limit into a timely one.

The application for payment is linked to the date of service of the application to the debtor if the creditor does not show that he has requested him to comply with the benefit arising from the unlawful act at an earlier date (yes: judgement of the ultimate Court of 20 January 2004 II CK 364/2002 LexPolonica No 2423260).

Under the civilian law principle, the debtor falls behind if he fails to comply with the benefit within the time erstwhile it becomes due, even if he questions its existence or amount (yes: ultimate Court judgments of 13 October 1994 I CRN 121/94 OSNC 1995/1 item 21, of 17 May 2000 I CKN 302/2000 LexPolonica No 384429 and of 22 October 2003 II CK 146/2002 LexPolonica No 394331).

For these reasons, it should be assumed that the harm is already full disclosed on the date of service of the application, and the fact that it can only be objectively assessed as a consequence of the expert’s opinion does not prevent the payment of interest from the date of service of the application which, in accordance with Article 455 k.c., is equivalent to the date of the call for payment for unlimited obligations and in the light of Article 481 § 1 k.c., creates a hold justifying the calculation of interest (yes: Judgment of 25 April 2014, Case II Ca 351/14).

Flooding of the flat and insurance

According to Article 828 § 1 kc introducing the alleged insurance regression, unless otherwise agreed, the insurer’s claim against the 3rd organization liable for the harm shall, by law, be passed on to the insurer up to the amount of the compensation paid. If the undertaking has only covered part of the damage, the policyholder shall have precedence over the remainder of the compensation before the insurer’s claim.

They shall not pass on to the insurer the claims of the policyholder against persons with whom the policyholder remains in the common household unless the offender has intentionally caused harm (§ 2).

It should be borne in head that the insurance regression does not make a new, generic claim, but is only the legal basis for the transition of the existing claim of the injured individual against the 3rd organization liable to the insurer, up to the amount of compensation paid (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 17 March 2017, I ACa 26/16, L.).

In the light of Article 828(1) k.c., the conditions for the insurer to get a claim are:

• liability of the injured party
• payment of compensation.

Since the claim acquired by the insurer is fundamentally the same claim as that which was awarded to the injured individual for the failure of civilian liability, in the regress proceedings of that person, any charges he had against the injured individual at the time of the announcement of the creditor's change (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 16 June 2009, V CSK 447/08, L.).

The insurer’s claim based on this provision is subject to general rules on the distribution of the burden of proof in the process (yes: ultimate Court judgement of 14 January 2010, IV CSK 300/09, L.). It is not adequate for an insurance regression to be incurred by the insured person, but it is essential to have further conditions, i.e. harm to the goods of the insured individual or the policyholder and the existence of a civilian law entity liable for the harm and not a organization to the insurance contract. The insurer is entering into the legal situation of the insured person.

Thus, in the case of the insurance regression, both the delict liability, as laid down in Articles 415 et seq.c., and the liability for failure to execute or incorrect execution of the work (Articles 471 et seq.c.) may be active (yes: K. Malinowska (in:) Z. Brodecki, M. Glicz, M. Serwach (ed.) Business insurance law. Comment. Tom II. Law on insurance contracts. Comment on regulations and selected contract patterns, LEX 2010).

The insurance recourse (legal subrogation) provided for in Article 828(1) of the Act consists in the transfer from the law to the insurer of the insurer of the insurer's claim (pursuant to Article 828(3) of the Law, respectively, of the insured person's claim), but only to the individual liable for harm to the policyholder (as appropriate – the insured person) and to the 1 to whom the insurer paid the compensation (so: judgement of SN of 14 March 2018, II CSK 245/17, L.). It is clear from the above that the passive card is held by the individual liable for the damage.

Limitation of insurance regression

Article 828(1) does not give emergence to the presumption that the sum of compensation paid by the insurance undertaking corresponds to the liability of the individual who caused the damage, The insurer’s claim, based on this provision, is subject to general rules on the burden of proof in the process (yes: judgement of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 8 July 2015 and I ACa 224/15). The court is not bound by the amount of compensation actually paid. The liability of the individual liable for the harm is the actual amount of the damage, but it must not exceed the actual compensation paid. In the course of the trial, the suspect may competition the amount and degree of benefits paid by the insurance undertaking, stating in peculiar that the insurer has been unduly aware of the harm suffered by the victim (yes: Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of 14.10.2014, VI ACa 57/14).