No co-possession from occasional tolerated use of a footpath

OG 1992 11Outro Tribunal21 de jan. de 1992Other

Abrir fonte

Extraído pela Omnilex

Resumo Omnilex

The dispute concerned whether the defendants had become co-possessors of a footpath on the plaintiff's property by occasionally using it, for example for manure transport. The court held that a person who is merely allowed, on a precarious tolerated basis, to drive over a footpath does not thereby acquire possession. A cited precedent was distinguished because the regular use there had been much more recent and continuous, whereas in the present case any alleged regular possession-like use by the defendants dated back about 14 years and could no longer support co-possession.

Sumário Omnilex

Possession; co-possession is not acquired where a person is only tolerated, on a precarious basis, to use a footpath. Occasional or merely permitted passage does not establish possessory status. A precedent concerning tolerated repeated use over several years is distinguishable where the alleged possession-like exercise lies far in the past; in such a case, co-possession cannot be recognized at the relevant time (consid. unspecified).

Texto completo

In einem Besitzesschutzverfahren war u.a. die Frage streitig, ob die Beklagten dadurch, dass sie in Einzelfällen einen zum klägerischen Grundstück gehörenden Fussweg befahren durften (z. B. für Mistfuhren), Mitbesitz erworben hatten.

Aus den Erwägungen:

. . .Wem lediglich auf prekaristisches Zusehen hin das Recht eingeräumt wird, einen Fussweg zu befahren, kommt keine Besitzerstellung zu. . . . Aus dem Hinweis auf Max. XII Nr. 8 vermögen die Beklagten nichts zu ihren Gunsten abzuleiten. Im zitierten Entscheid befuhr die Beklagte mit Duldung des Klägers dessen Grundstück mit einem Raupenfahrzeug. Sie tat dies in der Zeit von 1965 bis Frühjahr 1970 jeweils im Winter, worauf sich der Kläger erstmals am 23. Dezember 1970 zur Wehr setzte. Unter den damals gegebenen Umständen ging das Obergericht davon aus, die Beklagte habe Mitbesitz erworben. Insbesondere habe sie diesen mit der Einstellung des Skipistenbetriebs jeweils im Frühling nicht aufgegeben. Im vorliegenden Fall aber liegt die angeblich regelmässige Besitzausübung durch die Beklagten ca. 14 Jahre zurück. Von Mitbesitz kann deshalb, jedenfalls im heutigen Zeitpunkt, keine Rede sein.

Palavras-chave

possession protectionco-possessiontolerated usefootpathprecarious permissiondistinction of precedent

Extraído pela Omnilex

Questões jurídicas principais extraídas pela Omnilex

Questão jurídica principal

Whether the defendants acquired co-possession of the plaintiff's footpath by occasional tolerated use, such as for manure transport.

Decisão extraída

No. Mere permission to use a footpath on a precarious, tolerated basis does not confer possessory status; any earlier regular use was too remote in time to establish co-possession at the relevant moment.

Fundamentação extraída

The court distinguished an earlier precedent where a party had repeatedly used the land over several years with the owner's tolerance and only later faced opposition. Here, any alleged regular exercise of possession by the defendants lay about 14 years in the past, so co-possession could not be recognized at the present time.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.