References without law book default to BGB.

Case - Drone and Hose

Facts

Frank (F) is a very curious drone pilot, and with his camera-equipped drone, he likes to peek into the gardens and houses of his neighbors. One day, as his neighbor Nicolas (N) is lying in his garden and working on his tan, he hears the humming of the drone again. It is flying directly over his head and circling his house. After he tried to get rid of the drone by loud shouting, N has had enough. He takes his garden hose and sprays the drone with water. This leads to a short circuit, and the drone crashes into his pool, being destroyed.

Does N owe compensation to F for the drone (costs EUR 1,500)?

Solution

Slides Solution

• Issue: Does N owe compensation of EUR 1,500 to F according to § 823 I BGB?
• Rule: § 823 I BGB (Liability in damages).
• Application:
  • (1) Harm caused to life, body, health, freedom, property, or another right of another person: → (+), the drone is F’s property.
  • (2) Harm caused by an action: → (+), the property got damaged by N taking the hose and spraying water on the drone.
  • (3) Causality between action and the harm: → (+), if N had not sprayed the drone with water, it would not have crashed and, therefore, be not destroyed.
  • (4) Action unlawful: → (P). By flying the camera-equipped drone over the garden and around the house of N, F could have violated N’s general right to privacy (Art. 2 I, 1 I GG) as well as his property rights. Is N’s action justified by § 228 BGB (Defensive Necessity)?
    • a) Emergency situation: → (+), by filming N, his property, and flying over N’s garden, F violated N’s right to privacy and his property rights.
    • b) Necessity of damage/destruction: → (+), as shouting was no effective defense and N cannot identify the pilot, there are no milder means than destroying the drone.
    • c) Damage/destruction is not out of proportion to danger: → (+), the violation of general personal rights, such as the right to one’s image or the right to privacy, as well as the violation of property rights, is very serious. The destruction of the drone is not out of relation to the danger that it poses.
    • → (+), N’s action was justified under § 228 BGB and, therefore, not unlawful.
• Conclusion: F cannot claim compensation from N in line with § 823 I BGB.

Write-Up

Issue: Can F demand compensation of EUR 1,500 for the destroyed drone from N under § 823 I BGB?

Rule: Under § 823 I BGB, a person who intentionally or negligently and unlawfully injures the property of another must pay damages.

Application:
1. Property Injury, Action, Causality:
N actively used his garden hose to spray water on the drone, directly and adequately causing a short circuit and its destruction. The drone is F’s property. Thus, the objective elements of the tort are met.

2. Unlawfulness and Justification:
The central issue is whether N’s action was unlawful. Under § 228 BGB (Defensive Necessity - Defensivnotstand), a person who damages or destroys a thing belonging to another in order to ward off a danger threatened by that thing is not acting unlawfully, provided the damage is necessary to ward off the danger and is not out of proportion to the danger.

• Danger threatened by a thing: The drone (the thing) was actively threatening and violating N’s absolute rights: his property rights (§ 903 BGB, extending into the airspace) and his constitutionally protected general right to privacy (being filmed while sunbathing in his private garden).
• Necessity: N first tried a milder means by shouting, which was ineffective. Because the pilot was unknown and remote, N had no other way to immediately stop the ongoing violation. Spraying the drone was the only effective and necessary means.
• Proportionality: The damage caused to the drone (EUR 1,500) must not be completely out of proportion to the danger warded off. The invasion of one’s core private sphere (being surveilled and recorded in one’s own garden) is considered a very severe infringement. Although the financial damage to the drone is significant, it is not completely disproportionate to protecting such fundamental personal rights.

Conclusion: N’s action was justified by defensive necessity (§ 228 BGB). Therefore, N did not act unlawfully, and F cannot claim compensation under § 823 I BGB.