A seemingly unusual situation—a tombstone is damaged or collapses, causing harm to a visitor to the cemetery. Although such incidents are not common, they carry serious legal consequences. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw of October 15, 2020 (ref. I ACa 76/20) shows that responsibility for such an event is far from clear, and determining who should actually have been responsible for maintaining the tomb is crucial.
The case concerned an accident in which a visitor to a grave was injured when the headstone collapsed. The injured party sought compensation and damages, arguing that the incident occurred due to the cemetery manager's negligence, who failed to properly monitor the technical condition of the graves. The court had to decide whether liability in this situation rested with the cemetery manager, the grave owner, or the contractor who had erected the headstone years earlier.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that responsibility for cemetery safety is shared, but within the limits defined by law. The cemetery manager is responsible for maintaining order and safety within the general area—but not for the condition of each individual grave. The owner (or rather, the keeper) of a grave is obligated to maintain its technical condition and make repairs if the structure becomes damaged. In this sense, the collapse of a slab, which is part of a specific headstone, primarily falls on the person who holds the right to the grave, not the manager of the entire cemetery.
The court noted that the situation would be different if the damage resulted from negligence in cemetery infrastructure—for example, a collapsed path, damage to a fence, or improper tree maintenance. In such cases, the administrator could be held liable under general principles. In this case, however, the damage was to a privately owned object—a grave, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the person using it.
Consequently, the court found that there was no basis for tortious liability on the part of the cemetery manager, as there was no culpable negligence within the scope of his duties. The event was an accident resulting from natural wear and tear of materials and a lack of ongoing maintenance, for which the grave manager is responsible.
This ruling has significant practical implications. It demonstrates that the limits of liability for damage to cemeteries are not unlimited—even if damage occurs on the grounds, the administrator cannot always be automatically held responsible. For families who own graves, this is an important reminder of the obligation to regularly inspect them and maintain them in proper condition.
In the context of compensation law, this ruling reminds us that the key to assessing liability is not only the place where the damage occurred, but above all the source of the duty of care. Tortious liability requires demonstrating both fault and a causal link between the omission and the damage – and in such cases, it is difficult to demonstrate that the administrator could have realistically prevented the damage that occurred inside the private tomb.
In practice, this means that visitors to cemeteries should exercise caution, and grave owners should regularly inspect their graves. Managers, however, should conduct general safety inspections but are not obligated to constantly monitor every gravestone. From a civil law perspective, this ruling is an example of the proper application of tortious liability principles and the separation of duties between the grounds manager and the property owner. It also demonstrates that the limits of liability for damages must be determined reasonably, taking into account the actual possibilities of preventing the damage.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of October 15, 2025.
Author / Editor of the series:
