Causing a Flood: Definition and Classification under Criminal Law
Das Causing a Flood is a criminal offense under German criminal law, referring to the intentional or negligent causation of a flood. The term is legally anchored in particular in Section 313 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The purpose of this provision is to protect significant legal interests from the serious dangers caused by an intentional or negligent flood, such as life, the health of people, or objects of substantial value.
Legal Basis
Section 313 StGB – Causing a Flood
The criminal regulation is an independent offense found in section 28 of the Special Part of the StGB under the heading “Offenses Endangering the Public.” Section 313 StGB provides punishment for causing a flood:Wording of Section 313 StGB:
“Anyone who, by causing water in large quantities to flow or accumulate from containers or against the natural direction of flow, causes a flood in areas used for public transport or the residence of people or significant property values, shall be punished…”
Protective Purpose of the Offense
The focus of the offense is on the preventive protection against publicly dangerous harm. The law especially protects:
- the life and physical integrity of people,
- property of significant extent or value,
- the safety and functionality of public transport and places of assembly.
Elements of the Offense
1. Criminal Act
a) Causing a Flood
Any act, whether intentional or negligent, that triggers a flood meets the elements of the offense. A flood within the meaning of the law typically occurs when water enters areas usually dry in quantities, potentially causing significant harm to persons or property.
b) Nature of Triggering: Water from Containers or Against the Natural Flow
The law requires the qualifying act of causing a flood
- by water from natural or artificial containers (e.g., dams, ponds, water reservoirs),
- or by interfering with the natural course of water (e.g., diverting a river against its flow, breaking of levees).
2. The Affected Area
The act must cause a flood in areas which have a public or special significance . This specifically includes
- traffic areas (roads, paths, railway tracks),
- places where people are present,
- areas with significant property value.
The flooding of unused, remote, or worthless areas alone generally does not fall under this criminal offense.
Subjective Elements: Intent and Negligence
The act can be committed either intentionally or negligently.
a) Intent
Intent exists when the perpetrator knowingly and deliberately causes a flood and accepts the endangerment of people, property, or public facilities.
b) Negligence
Negligence occurs when the perpetrator disregards the necessary duty of care in traffic, thereby causing a flood without intending it but could have foreseen and prevented it. Criminal liability for negligent causing of a flood is governed by Section 314 StGB.
Legal Consequences and Penalties
In cases of intentional commission, the law provides for imprisonment of up to five years or a monetary fine . If the flood results in severe consequences, especially endangerment of life or limb of a person or serious property damage, an aggravated form and thus a higher penalty may be applicable. Attempted offenses are also punishable.
Distinction from Other Offenses
Causing a flood must be distinguished from other offenses endangering the public, especially:
- Endangering by Explosives (Section 308 StGB)
- Dangerous Interference with Road Traffic (Section 315b StGB)
- General Property Damage (Section 303 StGB)
Clear distinction is determined by the specific nature of the act and the risk involved. If, for example, water pipe breakage is caused by negligence and leads to substantial damages, it must be assessed whether Section 313 StGB applies or if it is merely property damage.
Criminal Assessment and Practical Relevance
Causing a flood constitutes an important protective mechanism against significant danger to public interests posed by water. Typical scenarios include deliberately opening sluices, sabotaging levees, or misuse of technical installations. Prosecution can address both civil acts of sabotage as well as environmental offenses and failures of technical management systems.
Relationship to Civil Claims
In addition to criminal penalties, injured parties can assert civil claims, especially for compensation for damages under Sections 823 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB), if personal injury or property damage is caused by a flood. Civil liability does not require a criminal conviction; both proceedings are independent of each other.
Overview: Causing a Flood as a Criminal Offense
In summary, it can be stated that Causing a Flood is comprehensively regulated in the Criminal Code and sets specific requirements regarding intent, the act, and scope of endangerment. The offense reflects modern hazard prevention law and accounts for the protection of community assets against significant water hazards.
Further Reading and References
- Criminal Code, text edition with commentary on § 313, § 314 StGB
- Commentaries on the Special Part of the StGB (Offenses Endangering the Public)
- Case law on the application and interpretation of § 313 StGB
Note: This article provides legal classification and general information on the term “causing a flood” within the meaning of criminal law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the criminal consequences of causing a flood?
Causing a flood is an independent criminal offense in Germany pursuant to Section 313 StGB (Criminal Code). The offense is prosecuted if someone intentionally causes flooding of bodies of water, land, or structures and thereby endangers the public. Depending on the seriousness of the act, penalties range from fines to imprisonment of up to five years; in particularly severe cases—such as endangerment of the life or limb of a large number of people or considerable damage to critical infrastructure—imprisonment can be up to ten years. In addition to criminal prosecution, injured parties often assert civil compensation claims. Even the attempt to cause a flood is punishable. Furthermore, a conviction for negligent causing of a flood may occur if there is no intent but a gross violation of duties of care can be proven.
In which cases is causing a flood exceptionally justified?
Justification for causing a flood is, from a legal perspective, generally only possible if a recognized justification exists. Such grounds may include self-defense (Section 32 StGB), necessity (Section 34 StGB), or consent. In a disaster scenario, it may be necessary to deliberately flood areas (for example, as a measure for flood protection) to avert greater damage or danger to human life. The decisive factor is that the measure is proportionate and no other means of preventing damage are available. Additionally, such a measure must be ordered or at least approved by the authorities in such situations. Unilateral causing of a flood without justification or official authorization remains punishable.
What civil claims exist against the perpetrator of a flood?
An injured party may regularly assert claims for damages against the perpetrator of a flood, based on Section 823 (1) BGB (tort), provided that a culpable act is present. Both property and financial losses can be claimed. In cases of intentional conduct, even compensation for pain and suffering may be demanded if persons are harmed. Furthermore, a claim for injunctive relief may exist if there is a continued or repeated threat. If the perpetrator is a legal entity, such as a company, it may be liable in tort. Public law claims against authorities are also possible if, for example, errors occurred during an official disaster prevention measure.
What role do official permits and requirements play in causing floods?
Deliberately causing floods, for example for water management purposes (e.g., retention basins), generally requires a water law permit under the Water Resources Act (WHG) and the relevant state water laws. Strict standards apply, especially regarding the protection of third-party property and the common good. Environmental and nature protection regulations also apply, especially when protected areas are involved. Violations of official requirements or the lack of necessary permits can result in not only civil consequences but also administrative offenses or criminal consequences up to and including shutdown of the measure and fines.
How is the attempt to cause a flood legally assessed?
According to Section 313 (2) StGB, even the attempt to cause a flood is punishable. An attempt is present when the perpetrator begins the act according to his or her conception, but the flood does not occur for factual or other reasons. For punishability, the mere subjective intention to cause a flood suffices, regardless of whether the risk actually materialized. Should the perpetrator withdraw from the attempt, the penalty can be mitigated or excluded, provided that the perpetrator voluntarily and earnestly prevents the result.
Can companies or legal entities also be held responsible for causing a flood?
Although criminal law is generally aimed at natural persons, companies or legal entities can be held liable under administrative offenses law (Section 30 OWiG) and corporate criminal law. If floods are made possible by organizational deficiencies, inadequate safety measures, or instructions from management, a fine can be imposed on the company. Legal entities are also civilly liable for damages. The liability of organs (managing directors, board members, etc.) may be personal, especially in cases of gross negligence or breaches of duty of care.
What relevance does intent or negligence have in causing a flood?
For criminal liability under Section 313 StGB, intent is generally required; that is, the perpetrator must have caused the flood knowingly and deliberately. Negligent causation, such as through neglect of duties of care, malfunctions of installations, or omissions, is also punishable under Section 314 StGB but usually only when significant damage has occurred. The distinction between intent and negligence is crucial for sentencing and depends on the specific circumstances and the proof of the perpetrator’s internal attitude.
