Facts
The appellant [X.] is the sole heir of his deceased uncle and godfather [Y.] . At [Y.] 's own request, a guardianship was established, and [G.] was appointed as the guardian. Since [G.] failed to prepare an opening inventory despite requests, she was temporarily removed from office by the guardianship authority [F.] , and [H.] was appointed as the interim guardian. According to the final account submitted by [H.] , there were missing receipts for an amount of CHF 108,140.55 that had not been provided by [G.] . [X.] then filed a claim against [G.] and obtained a declaratory judgment. However, since [G.] was insolvent, the claim could not be collected. Thereupon, [X.] filed a claim against the five members of the guardianship authority [F.] (the respondents [A.] , [B.] , [C.] , [D.] and [E.] ) to compel them to pay the amount.Considerations
The District Court and the High Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the claim. The Federal Supreme Court partially dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant alleges that the respondents, as members of the guardianship authority, violated their duty of care in the selection, instruction and supervision of the guardian [G.] . He argues that [G.] should not have been appointed due to her lack of qualifications, and that the respondents failed to enforce the timely preparation of the opening inventory. As a result, the resulting damage is adequately causally linked to the misconduct of the respondents. The Federal Supreme Court considers the appellant's allegations to be justified. It finds that the respondents violated their supervisory duty by…