Due to the poor maintenance of many buildings in our country, it is not uncommon for injuries to pedestrians or damage to vehicles to occur as a result of the collapse of buildings or parts thereof. Various construction defects, as well as the high risk posed by some structures, have led the Greek legislator to establish a specific provision (Article 925 of the Greek Civil Code), which provides for the liability of the owner or possessor of a building or other structure towards third parties, in the event that a person is injured due to such a collapse.
This provision is particularly important as it introduces strict (objective) liability for the owner or possessor of the building, presuming prima facie that the damage suffered by the third party is due to defective construction or poor maintenance of the structure. Therefore, in order for the third party to prove their claim, they must establish:
- the collapse of the building or other structure,
- the personal damage they suffered,
- the causal link between the collapse and the damage, and
- that the liable party was indeed the owner or possessor at the time of the incident.
Conversely, the owner/possessor may only be discharged from liability if they can prove that the damage was caused by a different factor, unrelated to defective construction or poor maintenance.
Moreover, in order to avoid an overly broad scope of liable parties, the collapse must concern a building or construction project “connected to the ground.” Under Greek law, a “building” or “structure” is considered any man-made construction permanently affixed to the surface of the ground, regardless of its purpose.
As for the concept of “collapse” that triggers liability, the law refers to any kind of structural failure or falling down, whether total or partial, under the force of gravity (e.g., the fall of a staircase, floor, roof, or even certain types of leaks from piping systems).
It is difficult for the owner of the building to rebut liability unless extraordinary circumstances apply—such as proving that the collapse was caused by an event of force majeure (e.g., a severe earthquake, unexpected soil subsidence, lightning strikes, or exceptional storms). Nevertheless, Greek case law is strict in its interpretation, and has ruled that even adverse weather conditions do not necessarily qualify as force majeure, depending on the circumstances.
Additionally, any urban planning violations (e.g., illegal constructions) will severely undermine any defense of non-liability by the owner.
Finally, if multiple individuals are co-owners or joint possessors of the building, they are held jointly and severally liable toward the injured party—each of them is liable for the full amount of compensation. In cases where the collapse is also due in part to the unlawful act of a third party, then both the owner/possessor and the third party are jointly and severally liable, since their combined actions or omissions contributed causally to the injury.
