In Kamchatka, a businessman was unable to sue money from the market for meat missing due to a fire

One of the entrepreneurs who lost their goods during a fire at the U Fountain market tried to sue money from the market management for spoiling almost 1,300 kg of MEAT products.

In a fire at the universal market in May 2019, the products of an individual entrepreneur who rented a trading place from LLC OB Kamchatpromtovary, which is the owner of the market, were damaged. As a result of the fire, freezing and refrigerating chambers, as well as products of the meat department on the first floor of the left wing of the market, were filled with water and smoked, the glazing was partially damaged. The entrepreneur suffered losses totaling 750 thousand rubles, losing meat products with a total weight of 1272 kg. The veterinary and sanitary examination recognized the IP products as unsuitable for human consumption and was sent for disposal.

LLC OB Kamchatpromtovary, referring to the absence of violations of fire safety requirements on its part, which caused the fire, refused the businessman to satisfy the claim for damages. Confident that the fire in the market building was due to the fault of the owner of the market due to the maintenance of electrical equipment in an unsatisfactory condition, the entrepreneur filed a lawsuit with the arbitration COURT.

“According to the expert's conclusion, it was not possible to establish the source of the fire, and the source zone is located on the second floor of the market, in the overhead space, at the junction of the flat and domed parts of the roof. The expert concluded that the most likely cause of the fire was the ignition of combustible materials (wire insulation) from the emergency operation of the power grid. At the same time, the expert explained in detail that emergency modes of operation of electrical devices are understood as such modes of operation in which the compliance of the nominal parameters and nominal operating conditions of the units or the entire product as a whole is violated. Among these modes, a group of fire hazardous emergency modes of operation of electrical devices is distinguished: short circuits, current overloads and the occurrence of large transient resistances, the court said. - As follows from the decision of 06/17/2019, the initiation of a criminal case on the fact of the fire was denied due to the absence of a crime event. It is also recorded in the resolution that no violations of fire safety requirements that led to the outbreak of a fire were detected during the inspection.

The court decided that the circumstances of the defendant's guilt in causing the fire, as well as the circumstances of the defendant's violation of fire safety requirements, were not established. As a result, the court did not satisfy the claims filed. The decision of the court has not entered into force.