Homeowners' responsibility for electrical infrastructure in condominiums
Apr 9, 2025
From: Attorney Shlomi Hadar, John Geva Hadar & Co., Attorneys at Law
Can damage to electrical pipes in a private apartment by professionals during renovations subject the apartment owner to liability for damages?
background
In the judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel 16287-05-23, Israel Electric Company Ltd. v. Benjamin Yedidia Twister, issued on February 10, 2025, the court was required to discuss the question of an apartment owner's liability for damage caused to the electrical power cables that pass through his apartment and serve the entire common building.
The incident occurred as part of renovation work on an apartment purchased by the defendant .
During the work, an iron pipe ("bundle") installed in the apartment's floor was cut, which contained power supply cables from the electricity company pole to the security cabinet and meters of the building, which contains 16 apartments. As a result of the cutting of the pipe, the power supply to the entire building was cut.
The electric company, which was called to the scene, repaired the damaged power cables by rewiring them in the existing layout and filed a lawsuit against the apartment owner to cover the repair costs.
On the other hand, the defendant filed a counterclaim, claiming that not only is there no reason to hold him liable, but that the electric company must compensate him for damages resulting from dealing with the incident in question. The damages, he claims, include alleged consultation with a lawyer, receiving an "opinion" from an expert, investment of time and effort, and emotional distress.
From: Attorney Shlomi Hadar, John Geva Hadar & Co., Attorneys at Law
Can damage to electrical pipes in a private apartment by professionals during renovations subject the apartment owner to liability for damages?
background
In the judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel 16287-05-23, Israel Electric Company Ltd. v. Benjamin Yedidia Twister, issued on February 10, 2025, the court was required to discuss the question of an apartment owner's liability for damage caused to the electrical power cables that pass through his apartment and serve the entire common building.
The incident occurred as part of renovation work on an apartment purchased by the defendant .
During the work, an iron pipe ("bundle") installed in the apartment's floor was cut, which contained power supply cables from the electricity company pole to the security cabinet and meters of the building, which contains 16 apartments. As a result of the cutting of the pipe, the power supply to the entire building was cut.
The electric company, which was called to the scene, repaired the damaged power cables by rewiring them in the existing layout and filed a lawsuit against the apartment owner to cover the repair costs.
On the other hand, the defendant filed a counterclaim, claiming that not only is there no reason to hold him liable, but that the electric company must compensate him for damages resulting from dealing with the incident in question. The damages, he claims, include alleged consultation with a lawyer, receiving an "opinion" from an expert, investment of time and effort, and emotional distress.
The parties' claims
The electric company claimed that the defendant must bear the costs of the repair, as the damage was caused by his negligence when he approved cutting a pipe without first clarifying its nature and purpose, thereby causing the electricity supply to the entire building to be shut off.
The defendant, for his part, claimed that he was not present in the apartment at the time of the incident and that he relied on the judgment of the plumber who performed the work, who reported to him by telephone about the presence of an iron pipe that the defendant thought was an old water pipe. In addition, the defendant claimed that the conduct of the electric company was negligent in that it laid the power cables through the floor of his apartment without his consent, and also due to the fact that it proposed to carry out the repair by means of re-laying the same layout, which he claims does not meet the standards required today.
The electric company claimed that the defendant must bear the costs of the repair, as the damage was caused by his negligence when he approved cutting a pipe without first clarifying its nature and purpose, thereby causing the electricity supply to the entire building to be shut off.
The defendant, for his part, claimed that he was not present in the apartment at the time of the incident and that he relied on the judgment of the plumber who performed the work, who reported to him by telephone about the presence of an iron pipe that the defendant thought was an old water pipe. In addition, the defendant claimed that the conduct of the electric company was negligent in that it laid the power cables through the floor of his apartment without his consent, and also due to the fact that it proposed to carry out the repair by means of re-laying the same layout, which he claims does not meet the standards required today.
The Honorable Judge Keren Margolin Feldman ruled in favor of the Electric Company, dismissing the counterclaim. In her ruling, the judge focused on several substantive issues.
First - Did the defendant's conduct in connection with causing the damage constitute negligence?
In this issue, the court was asked to consider the duty of care imposed on an apartment owner who is carrying out renovation work. In this context, the court ruled that the apartment owner has an increased duty of care when carrying out renovation work. The court referred to Section 46 of the Electricity Sector Law, 5756-1996, which allows for the installation of an electrical system within private property and requires the consent of the landowner.
The court clarified that a similar clause did not exist at the relevant times for the construction of the condominium, and therefore the installation of the cables at that time was done lawfully.
The defendant's choice to approve the cutting of a pipe running through the apartment floor without examining whether it was property of the electric company that could be damaged as a result of the cutting constitutes clear negligence.
The judge also addressed the proprietary aspect of electrical infrastructure in private apartments. Relying on Section 51 of the Electricity Sector Law, 5756-1996, it was determined that even if the defendant is the owner of the apartment, this does not confer on him ownership of the electrical cables and installations that were installed in his apartment by the electricity company.
The judge emphasized that "taking into account the provisions of the law, it is expected of every person, especially one whose apartment was built before the Electricity Sector Law came into effect, and one who purchased his apartment years after the construction of the condominium, to refrain from causing damage to the property of the installer. " Consequently, it was determined that the defendant could and should have expected that this was a pipeline for transporting electricity, and by failing to examine the nature and purpose of the pipeline and causing the damage, he was negligent towards the plaintiff.
Second - Is there any negligence on the part of the electric company towards the defendant in laying the power cables through a pipe buried in the floor of the defendant's apartment?
The court dealt with the question of the legality of the installation of the electrical cables in the original manner. To this end, an expert was appointed by the court who expressed his opinion that, at the relevant times for the construction of the apartment, there was no standard in the electricity sector to prevent the laying of conduits (within which the power cables pass) on the floors of residential apartments. Therefore, it was determined that the installation of the electrical cables as carried out during the construction of the building was done lawfully.
Furthermore, regarding the defendant's claim regarding the manner of the repair, the judge ruled that the re-paving in the existing layout complied with the provisions of the law and was ultimately carried out with the consent of the parties.
The court's decision
Summary and implications
The ruling sharpens the duties of care imposed on apartment owners who carry out renovations in old buildings, with respect to essential infrastructures that pass through them, and reflects a balance between the apartment owner's property rights and the public interest in maintaining essential infrastructures, while stating that private ownership does not grant "immunity" from tort liability.
The ruling serves as a warning sign for those who carry out construction and renovation work, and emphasizes the need for prior inspection, consultation with qualified professionals, and taking extra caution before damaging public infrastructure, as well as taking out appropriate insurance even when these are carried out in private property.
The ruling sharpens the duties of care imposed on apartment owners who carry out renovations in old buildings, with respect to essential infrastructures that pass through them, and reflects a balance between the apartment owner's property rights and the public interest in maintaining essential infrastructures, while stating that private ownership does not grant "immunity" from tort liability.
The ruling serves as a warning sign for those who carry out construction and renovation work, and emphasizes the need for prior inspection, consultation with qualified professionals, and taking extra caution before damaging public infrastructure, as well as taking out appropriate insurance even when these are carried out in private property.
מסמכים
