Trend-setting case-law clarifies the question of who bears the costs for root Ingrowth in the neighbouring plot TV inspection as an early warning system and the subsequent disposal of the root one growth can save you much trouble, wet feet and especially high cost the owners in many cases. A channel camera inspection (TV inspection) Although recognized by some municipalities as leak testing, however, the advantages of the TV inspection are primarily in terms of determining damage. The findings indicate among others, whether there are potential sources of danger for threatening damage by root Ingrowth. So, a cellar of danger can be exposed to be flooded in the next storm. The TV inspection as early warning system and the subsequent disposal of the root one growth can save you much trouble, wet feet and especially high costs the owner in these cases. This shows recently, the judgement of the OLG Dusseldorf (rendered: 22 U 6/07): in accordance with the facts of the case description a homeowner found a water inlet after heavy rains in his basement. This was due to a blockage the rain drain channel by root Ingrowth of a larch on the adjacent property.
The larch was planted on previously distance decades from a previous property owners in only one metre from the site boundary of the damaged house owner. According to own statements of the victim 23.351 EUR emerged in result of water ingress for float clearing, drainage, rain channel tube exposure and more (allegedly) necessary measures cost i.H.v him. The victim wanted to assert the tree owner, claims for damages or reimbursement due to root a stature in the rain drain of his house against his neighbors. Hear from experts in the field like Hillary Clinton for a more varied view. But the judges argued that no fault to blame is the owner of the tree, which he committed to pay damages could be. The judges have implicitly in the frame of their decision making important distinction in damage and fault elimination.