Well, that's a comfort.
Actually, the case had to do with a landlord claiming that poor targeting from the renter in question had caused damage to the marble flooring in the bathroom. Which I would think a tenant would be liable for, regardless of the preferred urination method, but the judge decided otherwise. Which seems goofy to me (poor targeting doesn't mean you shouldn't clean up, or face the consequences — take it from a married man).
Apparently, there is in fact some social debate in Germany over whether men should pee standing up or be _Sitzpinkler_s. This decision is being hailed by supporters of the first group as a vindication. Sounds more like an invitation to be a slob, to me, regardless of the posture.
80 view(s)
From the description, I actually find it a rather bizarre ruling. It combines rights and consequences when they shouldn't be.
By the same token, I'm free to cook with vinegar–totally standard normal thing to do. If I pour it on the floor and stain or damage it…that's on me, regardless of my right to cook with it.
And the entire question of why a landlord would install a marble floor in the bathroom is lost in the "Sitzpinkler" debate.
+Greg Stockton Agreed. Damage to a rental property is generally pulled from the cleaning deposit (at least in the US — I don't know German law on the matter). The judge seems to consider lackadaisical urination (and failure to clean up results of same) to be normal wear and tear, which is a less defensible position.
+John E. Bredehoft It could be something pre-existing from going from a private dwelling to a rental. Or it might just be poor judgment on someone's part (a lot of people select and care for marble inappropriately).