A woman in her twenties has been ordered by the Court of Appeal to pay nearly SEK 720,000 after extensive water damage in her rental apartment in Kungälv Municipality.
The incident occurred early on a Sunday morning almost five years ago. The alarm came from a healthcare facility in the same building where water began to pour from the ceiling. When the property owner investigated, it turned out that an apartment higher up in the building had suffered a major flooding.
Living in the apartment was a 22-year-old woman at the time. When staff from the landlord arrived, the woman’s father was already trying to limit the damage using his own dehumidifiers, but large amounts of water had already caused significant destruction.
The costs for remediation and restoration, according to Hem & Hyra, amounted to around SEK 330,000. The landlord, via a management company linked to property group Balder, demanded compensation from the woman. She opposed the demand and was supported by her insurance company.
READ ALSO: Used enormous amounts of water – evicted
The woman stated that the day before the incident she had been in Gothenburg with her sisters. After they returned home, they ate pizza and, according to her, went to bed late in the evening. She said she did not drink alcohol that night.
When she woke up early in the morning, she claimed to have found herself in the shower, seated over the floor drain, while water had spread throughout the home. She asserted she did not know how she ended up there.
Problems with Sleepwalking
During the initial legal proceedings in the district court, the woman stated that she had previously suffered from sleepwalking. One of her sisters corroborated this claim. The woman also said she had sought help for sleep-related problems after the incident and that she was using medication at the time which could affect sleep.
The district court found that the landlord could not prove the woman had acted negligently. Since the burden of proof is on the claimant in a damages case, she was acquitted from liability. However, the verdict was appealed and reviewed by the Court of Appeal, where, among other evidence, a building superintendent who was present shortly after the flooding was heard.
According to the building superintendent’s testimony, the woman said at the time that she had been out in town the night before and that “it might have been a bit too much”. He also stated that she told him she decided to shower when she got home but then fell asleep in the shower. He described her as ashamed of what had happened.
The woman contested this version, claiming she only said she woke up in the shower, not that she had consciously gone there before falling asleep. However, the Court of Appeal made a different assessment compared to the district court. The court found the woman’s explanations vague and unsupported by the investigation, while the superintendent’s account was deemed credible.
Negligent Conduct
The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the woman most likely entered the shower herself and then fell asleep. Thus, according to the court, the damage was not an accident but a result of negligent behavior.
The woman is therefore ordered to compensate for the damage of around SEK 330,000. She must also pay the opposing party’s legal costs in both the district court and the Court of Appeal, meaning the total sum approaches SEK 720,000.