Judicial principles and studies
Urgent Inspection, Water Authority Duties, and Custodian Liability
The study summarizes rules on the evidentiary value of urgent inspections, the Water Authority's scope regarding stormwater drainage, and custodian liability under Article 291 of the Civil Code and its possible rebuttal.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The points address four main issues: the evidentiary weight of an urgent inspection not conducted under court supervision, the delineation of the Water Authority’s duties versus municipal and Greater Amman responsibilities for stormwater drainage, the presumption of custodian liability under Article 291 of the Civil Code and its rebuttal, and the requirements for technical expertise when assessing compensation. A principle from a prior cassation ruling (No. 2022/3615) regarding urgent inspection reports is cited.
Summary
- An urgent inspection report prepared without court supervision is not binding as conclusive evidence by public order, but it may serve as the sole evidence of an item's features if the party relying on it calls the expert as a witness or the court summons the expert; the expert's testimony then becomes evidence subject to judicial evaluation. - Law No. 18/1988 defines the Water Authority's tasks in surveying and preserving water sources and planning allocations, and does not expressly assign responsibility for stormwater drainage within municipal boundaries; stormwater drains and their maintenance within Greater Amman fall under the Municipality's duties under applicable municipal and urban organization laws. - Liability for mechanical devices and things is presumed under Article 291 of the Civil Code but can be rebutted by proving absence of fault or that the damage arose from an external cause such as an act of God or third-party action. - If technical expertise was ordered only to quantify compensation and not to establish exceptional circumstances negating liability, and the court fails to identify those circumstances or the evidence relied upon, or wrongly uses rainfall comparisons from other areas, reliance on that expertise is legally flawed and may warrant annulment of the judgment. This content is a general educational summary and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.