Recently, the People's Court of Huiji District, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province concluded a property damage compensation dispute and ordered a developer, a construction company, and Li to each compensate their downstairs neighbor Wang for a loss of 27400 yuan. Li and Wang are both owners of a residential area in Zhengzhou, and they are neighbors upstairs and downstairs. After the handover of the residential area in early 2021, Li fully entrusted a decoration company to renovate his rough house in March 2021. However, just a few days after Li's new house was renovated, his downstairs neighbor Wang discovered a crack on the roof of his house and approached Li to negotiate a solution. Li stated that there are no cracks or abnormalities in the ground of his home and he is unwilling to repair or compensate Wang's house. The two sides have had multiple negotiations on repairing and compensating the damaged parts of Wang's house, but the negotiations have not been successful. So Wang sued both the developer, a construction company, and Li in court, requesting that the two defendants jointly compensate for the design fees and reinforcement costs of their house restoration plan. During the litigation process of this case, according to Wang's application, the court entrusted an appraisal company to assess the damage and safety level of the house in accordance with the law. According to the appraisal report, there is cracking in the ceiling and some walls of Wang's house. The appraisal conclusion is that the compressive strength of the roof concrete of Wang's house does not meet the design requirements. The upstairs decoration has an impact on the generation and development of roof cracks. Wang paid a appraisal fee of 20000 yuan for this. After the appraisal report was issued, Wang entrusted the maintenance company to issue a "Housing Maintenance Plan and Budget" to repair the damaged parts. After the court heard the case, it was found that the cracks on the roof of Wang's house were caused by the failure of the compressive strength of the concrete delivered by a certain construction group to meet the design requirements and the improper decoration of the house by the defendant Li. The facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient. Both defendants are at fault and each bears 50% compensation responsibility for the losses caused to the plaintiff as a result. Regarding the plaintiff Wang's claim for maintenance and reinforcement costs of 45000 yuan, although he provided evidence such as reinforcement contracts and receipts, based on the actual situation of the house cracks, Wang's claim for costs is clearly too high, and it is determined that the loss is 30000 yuan. Regarding Wang's claim for a 5-month rental fee of 12000 yuan due to delayed occupancy, although the cracks in the house were caused by the fault of the two defendants, Wang should take appropriate measures to prevent the expansion of the losses. It is determined that Wang will incur a rental fee of 4800 yuan due to the cracks in the house. Wang incurred a total of 54800 yuan in reasonable losses due to this dispute. Defendant Li and a construction company each bear compensation liability of 27400 yuan. The court then made the above judgment in accordance with relevant legal provisions. The judge's statement: As the saying goes, "distant relatives are not as good as close neighbors." A harmonious neighborhood relationship is not only conducive to family harmony and happiness, but also to social harmony and stability. In this case, the defendant Li and the plaintiff Wang belong to the owners of the same building, and although they each have the right to possess, use, benefit from, and dispose of their exclusive parts of the building, they should exercise their rights prudently and not harm the legitimate rights and interests of other owners, and should also properly handle the adjacent relationship between the upper and lower floors. Defendant Wang, as the owner of the house, failed to exercise caution