Please Note That the Parking Lot Will Not Be Compensated in the Following Three Cases - Tigerwong

With the popularity of driving, the litigation caused by parking disputes is also on the rise. The reporter learned from Beijing Chaoyang Court yesterday that many car owners have such misunderstanding: they believe that as long as the car is parked in the parking lot, the parking lot will pay for the damage of the vehicle. In fact, the parking lot is not fully responsible for vehicle damage, and the compensation is deductible in three types of cases. 1. No special agreement on the temporary road parking lot: Mr. ran drives an accord car to work every day. Because the vehicles in the unit yard are saturated, he parks the car in a roadside temporary road parking lot not far from the unit, and applies for a long-term parking permit, with a monthly parking management fee of 100 yuan. One day on duty, Mr. ran found that the car was stolen, so he sued the parking company managing the temporary road occupied parking lot to the court for compensation for the loss of the stolen car.

The court held that the roadside parking lot is only responsible for providing a rental site for motor vehicles to park, and the fee charged is only the site rental fee rather than the storage fee. Therefore, the roadside parking lot does not have to bear the liability for compensation for vehicle theft. Comments: according to the judge of Chaoyang Court, for the site rental parking lot represented by the temporary occupied parking lot, except for the special circumstances in which the owner and the parking lot separately agree to establish a custody relationship, the temporary rental contract relationship between the owner and the parking lot is established. The fees paid by the owner are only the site rental fee rather than the custody fee. In case of the loss of parked vehicles In case of damage, the parking lot shall not bear the custody responsibility.

However, the temporary parking lot shall also bear the obligation to mark the words "temporary parking lot" in the prominent place, and the charging voucher issued to the owner shall clearly indicate that the fees charged are the rental fees of the parking lot. If the owner has reason to believe that a motor vehicle custody contract relationship has been formed with the parking lot due to non performance, the parking lot shall still be responsible. 2. Free parking without gross negligence: Ms. Yang drove to a community to visit her friends and parked her car in the underground parking lot of the community. Although there were security guards on duty in underground garage, no one charged Ms. Yang's vehicle. When Ms. Yang picked up the car, she found that the car body was artificially scratched. Because the negotiation failed, she sued and asked the property company to compensate for the loss of the car.

The court held that since the parking lot was not a toll parking lot and Ms. Yang did not pay the parking fee, a free custody contract relationship was established between the two parties. The property company has special personnel on duty in the parking lot, and security guards patrol regularly. They have fulfilled their obligation of proper management. There is no evidence to prove that the property company has intentional or gross negligence in vehicle loss. The court ruled that Ms. Yang lost the lawsuit.

Comments: if it is free parking, the parking lot will be liable for damages only if it has intentional or gross negligence in the damage and loss of the custody vehicle. However, if it is a free parking provided by shopping malls, restaurants and other consumer places, it should be a supporting service provided by businesses to customers and a paid business behavior. In this case, the parking lot cannot be defined as a free parking lot and shall be liable for the loss of parked vehicles. If it is a free parking lot in non consumer places such as organs, enterprises and institutions, the parking lot shall not be liable for compensation without intention or gross negligence. 3. No compensation for stolen items not entrusted for safekeeping: Mr. Guo drove to a shopping mall, parked his vehicle in the underground parking lot of the mall and took the time charge voucher. When picking up the car after shopping, he found that the car lock had been pried, resulting in the loss of the car and the theft of a laptop in the car.

Therefore, Mr. Guo claimed the repair fee and the loss of stolen property from the mall. The court held that when Mr. Guo stored the vehicle, he did not deliver the laptop and other valuables in the vehicle to the management personnel for separate custody, nor did he clearly inform the parking management personnel of the presence of valuables in the vehicle, so it was difficult to determine that he had established a separate custody contract relationship with the mall for the items in the vehicle. The court ruled that the defendant should pay Mr. Guo's vehicle repair fee, However, his claim for compensation for the loss of goods in the vehicle was rejected. Comments: if the owner parks the vehicle in the parking lot and wants to reach a custody contract with the parking lot for the goods in the vehicle, he needs to conclude a custody contract with the parking lot for the goods in the vehicle and pay the corresponding custody fee. Mr. Guo neither delivered the valuables in the car to the parking lot management personnel, nor clearly informed the parking lot management personnel of the placement of valuables in the car.

In this case, the items in the car should not be within the scope of compensation.