Mercedes Driver Takes Legal Action After Couple Damages Car During Sexual Encounter
- Replies 4
There’s nothing more frustrating than pouring money into buying, maintaining, or repairing a car only to have it ruined by someone else’s reckless behaviour.
This is what happened to one man who is now suing the owners of a car park after a couple allegedly damaged his Mercedes while they were engaged in an X-rated activity.
Buckle up, folks. This is a wild one.
Omer Murzoglu, the 53-year-old owner of a Mercedes is suing the owners of the underground car park that allegedly caused his vehicle to be damaged.
He claims that the security at the car park was so poor that the couple was able to commit the act of vandalism without being caught. He said that this is what makes them responsible for the reparations.
CCTV footage of the act reportedly showed the couple walking down and stopping in front of the dark blue Mercedes C-Class.
Then, after stripping away every article of clothing, they appeared to have ‘frantic’ sex on top of the car’s bonnet. The owner of the car said the encounter was so passionate that they not only damaged the bodywork, but also knocked off one of the car’s wing mirrors too.
Experts estimated that the damage costs more than $7,000 to repair.
When Mr Murzoglu asked the car park’s owners for compensation, they denied his request.
He then filed a lawsuit against them, arguing that the car owners were negligent in preventing his property from being damaged.
Mr Murzoglu said: ‘I parked my car in the underground car park at the cathedral around 6pm and went to the Covid-19 test centre, where I worked as a night watchman.’
And then when he came back to fetch his car at around 8am the next day, he claimed that it ‘was demolished’.
Mr Murzoglu’s lawyer, Matthias Siegert-Paar said it was ‘clear’ that the car park needed to take responsibility for the damage.
‘If you park a car for money in a multi-storey car park that is monitored, then the operating company must be held liable,’ the lawyer shared.
He further added that since the car park’s owner objected to compensating Mr Murzoglu, he has now decided to sue.
However, the lawsuit was dismissed by the Cologne District Court when judges ruled that the car park’s owners were ‘not obligated to monitor the CCTV constantly’.
Additionally, court officials who obtained the CCTV footage during the trial did not carry out a public search against the anonymous couple.
Ulrich Bremer, Chief Public Prosecutor explained why: ‘A public search was not legally possible. This would only be done if it was a crime of considerable importance.’
‘This requirement is undoubtedly not met in the case of an offence involving property damage, even taking into account the amount of damage,’ he added.
Attorney Siegert-Paar said that they would appeal the decision.
In Australia, while there is no specific crime of sexual intercourse or nudity in public, a person can still be held liable for an offence of obscene exposure – which carries a criminal conviction.
However, in instances where committing sexual exposure in public is proven, it becomes a criminal offence and puts the suspect on the sex offence register list – along with a fine and a prison sentence.
According to the Summary Offences Act 1966, ‘a person must not wilfully and obscenely expose the genital area of his or her body in, or within the view of, a public place. The provision also imposes a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units or imprisonment for six months, and a $1,100 fine. It is also important to consider that the suspect does not have to physically be in a public space to be charged. It is enough to be merely in view from the public space or school.
What would you have done in the same situation? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
This is what happened to one man who is now suing the owners of a car park after a couple allegedly damaged his Mercedes while they were engaged in an X-rated activity.
Buckle up, folks. This is a wild one.
Omer Murzoglu, the 53-year-old owner of a Mercedes is suing the owners of the underground car park that allegedly caused his vehicle to be damaged.
He claims that the security at the car park was so poor that the couple was able to commit the act of vandalism without being caught. He said that this is what makes them responsible for the reparations.
The CCTV footage showed the couple engaging in a lewd act in an underground parking area. Credit: Clem Onojeghuo/Pexels
CCTV footage of the act reportedly showed the couple walking down and stopping in front of the dark blue Mercedes C-Class.
Then, after stripping away every article of clothing, they appeared to have ‘frantic’ sex on top of the car’s bonnet. The owner of the car said the encounter was so passionate that they not only damaged the bodywork, but also knocked off one of the car’s wing mirrors too.
Experts estimated that the damage costs more than $7,000 to repair.
When Mr Murzoglu asked the car park’s owners for compensation, they denied his request.
He then filed a lawsuit against them, arguing that the car owners were negligent in preventing his property from being damaged.
The couple’s romp was so wild it damaged Mr Murzoglu’s car. Credit: Pixabay/Pexels
Mr Murzoglu said: ‘I parked my car in the underground car park at the cathedral around 6pm and went to the Covid-19 test centre, where I worked as a night watchman.’
And then when he came back to fetch his car at around 8am the next day, he claimed that it ‘was demolished’.
Mr Murzoglu’s lawyer, Matthias Siegert-Paar said it was ‘clear’ that the car park needed to take responsibility for the damage.
‘If you park a car for money in a multi-storey car park that is monitored, then the operating company must be held liable,’ the lawyer shared.
He further added that since the car park’s owner objected to compensating Mr Murzoglu, he has now decided to sue.
The alleged damages to Mr Murzoglu’s car cost $7,000. Credit: Dmitry Zvolskiy/Pexels
However, the lawsuit was dismissed by the Cologne District Court when judges ruled that the car park’s owners were ‘not obligated to monitor the CCTV constantly’.
Additionally, court officials who obtained the CCTV footage during the trial did not carry out a public search against the anonymous couple.
Ulrich Bremer, Chief Public Prosecutor explained why: ‘A public search was not legally possible. This would only be done if it was a crime of considerable importance.’
‘This requirement is undoubtedly not met in the case of an offence involving property damage, even taking into account the amount of damage,’ he added.
Attorney Siegert-Paar said that they would appeal the decision.
In Australia, while there is no specific crime of sexual intercourse or nudity in public, a person can still be held liable for an offence of obscene exposure – which carries a criminal conviction.
However, in instances where committing sexual exposure in public is proven, it becomes a criminal offence and puts the suspect on the sex offence register list – along with a fine and a prison sentence.
According to the Summary Offences Act 1966, ‘a person must not wilfully and obscenely expose the genital area of his or her body in, or within the view of, a public place. The provision also imposes a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units or imprisonment for six months, and a $1,100 fine. It is also important to consider that the suspect does not have to physically be in a public space to be charged. It is enough to be merely in view from the public space or school.
.png){kind=icon}
