Section 1319 ABGB covers liability for collapse and detachment of building parts. Key requirements, control and evidence in building law.
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte
Salzburg law firm for real estate, construction and corporate law
Every matter is handled by a coordinated team of lawyers, legal staff and specialists. In construction cases we look at contract, evidence, deadlines and commercial consequences together.
When a building collapses or part of a structure detaches and causes personal injury or other damage, section 1319 ABGB becomes a central liability provision. It connects compensation to the defective condition of the structure and to the care taken by the person in control.
The assessment therefore turns on four questions: Is the object a building or another work erected on land? Did a typical structural danger materialise? Who had actual control of the work? Can the required care be proven?
This article distinguishes liability under section 1319 ABGB from general duties of care and from public authority safety measures. It explains which facts and documents matter for an initial legal assessment.
Answer three short questions. You will receive an initial orientation on danger, damage and the key documents.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The specific event determines whether damage has already occurred or whether safety steps come first.
Secure the affected area to the extent required and obtain a qualified assessment if necessary. Record the condition, warnings, measures and costs where this can be done without creating further danger.
The later question of compensation and responsibility is easier to assess when the initial situation is traceable.
Collect photographs, invoices, findings, witness details and correspondence about the event. Clarify which part of the structure was affected and how the damage developed.
Organised evidence helps distinguish the requirements of section 1319 ABGB from other possible grounds of liability.
Organise the documents by structure, event, control and damage. It can then be assessed whether a defective condition caused the event and which safety measures the person in control can prove.
Where injuries or substantial property damage are involved, early legal assessment is useful because technical changes may make evidence more difficult.
Review ownership, possession, administration, maintenance agreements and actual control of the work. An internal allocation of tasks does not automatically answer the external liability question.
The next assessment should identify who had access, decision-making power and knowledge of the danger at the relevant time.
Section 1319 ABGB covers damage caused by the collapse of a building or another work erected on land, as well as by the detachment of parts of such a work. The object can therefore be a building part or a structural installation rather than a conventional residential building.
There must be a specific event, personal injury or other damage, and a connection with the defective condition of the work. The provision places the compensation obligation on the person in control when these requirements are met and that person cannot prove the required care.
The assessment should start with the actual sequence of events. A suspicion of poor construction or a general concern about the condition is not enough for a sound legal conclusion.
Case law interprets the term work broadly. In 5 Ob 218/23d of 4 July 2024, the Supreme Court treated a firmly connected tennis court fence as a work within section 1319 ABGB. The relevant point was that the danger could arise from the construction and function of the installation.
Detachment can involve a falling building part, a loose fixing or another structurally connected component. Its position, attachment, function and movement must be established for the legal classification.
Liability under section 1319 ABGB is separate from a general duty to secure every uneven surface or obstacle. In 3 Ob 178/14v of 18 December 2014, the Supreme Court rejected the provision for ice at a building entrance because no typical danger connected with the height, depth, statics or dynamics of the work had materialised.
A defective condition may arise from planning, materials, construction, attachment, maintenance or a later alteration. The cause must be established by examining the condition of the work and the specific event.
In 5 Ob 218/23d, the Supreme Court described a typical structural danger as one connected with the statics or dynamics of the work. The assessment of the tension screw turned on the fact that its projection changed with the tension of the wire mesh. The court required further findings about foreseeable danger and the care that was due.
The technical cause should therefore be described in concrete terms. An expert report should explain which part was defective, how the danger materialised and whether the damage resulted from that condition.
Section 1319 ABGB addresses the person in possession or control of the building or work. Actual control and the ability to inspect and influence the dangerous condition are central to this assessment.
Ownership is an important indication, but it may not answer the question on its own. Administration, letting, leasing, maintenance and actual decision-making power can be relevant. In 5 Ob 218/23d, the Supreme Court examined the control position of two parties connected with the tennis facility.
A contractual allocation of tasks helps with internal responsibilities. External liability still requires an assessment of who had access, decision-making power and knowledge of the danger when the event occurred.
Under section 1319 ABGB, the person in control must prove that all care required to prevent the danger was taken. The standard is objective. The Supreme Court refers to the safeguards and inspections that a careful building owner or possessor would have carried out.
The required inspections depend on construction, age, use, maintenance condition, visible changes and the foreseeability of danger. Regular checks, proper maintenance, warnings and a traceable response to reports may be important to the proof of care.
The file should show the condition before the event, observed irregularities, commissioned work and responses to warnings. A general reference to a property manager or contractor does not replace this specific evidence.
Section 1319 ABGB covers personal injury and other damage. This can include injury, damaged property and resulting financial loss where the required connection with the structural event is proven.
Date, condition, movement and damage pattern matter for causation. Where a building part falls, the fixing, release mechanism and contact with the damaged person or property should be traceable.
Contract, general duties of care, public building law or insurance questions may also arise. Each ground has its own requirements. An authority measure therefore does not automatically decide a private compensation claim.
The initial file should contain photographs and videos, plans, invoices, maintenance and inspection records, defect notices, emails and witness details in chronological order. The documents should also show who used, administered or controlled the work.
If an authority has issued a safety order, public duties and private compensation claims proceed alongside one another. Keep the order, proof of service, deadlines and scope of the required measure separately. The related article on dangerous building defects explains the public safety side in more detail.
In condominium ownership, additional questions concern responsibility within the owners' association and consent to building alterations. Those issues may matter for internal costs and the organisation of repairs.
Each question addresses one part of the assessment. Together they produce a reliable picture.
| Question | What it covers | Useful evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Work Building or another work erected on land? | Identify the part, fixing and function. | Plans, photographs, expert report |
| Event Collapse or detachment with injury or damage? | Record the sequence and damage pattern. | Photographs, findings, invoices |
| Control Who could control the work? | Bring ownership, use and actual control together. | Contracts, administration, responsibilities |
| Care Which measures were taken? | Make inspections, warnings and responses traceable. | Records, orders, correspondence |
The table structures the assessment. Whether a claim succeeds depends on the specific facts and evidence.
A clear sequence prevents technical issues and responsibility from being confused.
Secure the affected area and take necessary measures.
Record the part, fixing, damage pattern and sequence with technical clarity.
Review control, warnings, maintenance and responses at the relevant time.
Practical step: Secure the evidence before damaged parts are removed or changed. You can subscribe to legal updates for new articles and guidance. If damage has already occurred, you can book an initial consultation (72 euros).
The provision concerns damage caused by the collapse of a building or another work, and by the detachment of parts. Personal injury or other damage, a defective condition and the control position must be assessed.
No. The relevant structural danger must have materialised and the damage must be connected with the defective condition. The Supreme Court distinguishes this from general obstacles and ordinary ice at an entrance.
The key question is who had actual control and the ability to inspect and influence the dangerous condition. Ownership, use, administration and contractual duties must be reviewed together.
Secure photographs, plans, inspection and maintenance records, invoices, findings, notices, contracts and correspondence. Arrange them by date, affected parts, responsibilities and consequences.
In construction law, deadlines and evidence decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000