Seeking cases of property management disputes

Should the property company compensate for the loss of vehicles on the fire escape?

According to the original case, the plaintiff is the owner of the Asian Garden, and has been staying in the Garden since she bought the house. On March 1 2006, the plaintiff bought an Accord car with a value of 282,000 yuan. From the month when the car was purchased, the plaintiff paid the parking service fee of 100 yuan to a property company of the defendant every month, and parked the car in the community every day. Around the early morning of March 9, 2009, the plaintiff drove back to the Asian Garden and swiped his card into the parking lot to find a parking space. Due to the lack of parking spaces, the plaintiff swiped his card and drove out of the parking lot, parking his car on the fire escape at the gate of the community. At that time, the plaintiff asked the security company on duty if his car was parked here. Lian replied that it was generally good. At 2 o'clock in the afternoon of March 10, the plaintiff found that the vehicle was stolen and immediately called the police. After the vehicle was stolen, the plaintiff negotiated compensation with the defendant many times. The plaintiff thinks that he pays the parking fee to the defendant every month, and the defendant handles the parking card for the plaintiff. The two sides formed a contractual relationship of vehicle custody. The plaintiff's car was lost in the defendant's parking lot, and the defendant should compensate the car for the loss of 226,600 yuan. The defendant argued that the defendant never promised to provide custody service for the plaintiff's vehicle, and the plaintiff paid the parking fee instead of the vehicle custody fee. The defendant has announced at the gate of the parking lot that it is only for parking vehicles and is not responsible for keeping them. If the plaintiff loses the vehicle parked on the fire escape outside the parking lot, he shall bear the loss himself. The court found that the parking lot of the Asian Garden Community has a gate for vehicles to enter and exit, but there is no gate at the entrance and exit of the community. Article 5 of the Parking Management Regulations publicly posted outside the parking lot reminds that vehicles must be parked in designated parking spaces, and parking in pedestrian walkways, fire exits and non-parking spaces is strictly prohibited.

I. Problems

1. Does the defendant have the obligation to manage the vehicles parked on the fire escape?

2. Should the plaintiff bear the responsibility for the loss of the vehicle?

Second, analysis

(1) The defendant has the obligation to manage the plaintiff's vehicles parked on the fire escape.

In this case, the plaintiff, as the owner of the community, paid the parking fee to the defendant on a monthly basis, and the defendant handled the monthly parking card for the plaintiff's vehicle. The two sides did not specifically agree on the relationship of vehicle storage, so the two sides formed a de facto legal relationship of vehicle parking management. According to this legal relationship, the defendant is obliged to check the vehicles in and out of the parking lot. If the defendant fails to fulfill this obligation, he will bear the corresponding legal responsibility. The focus of this case is whether the plaintiff got the defendant's permission to park his car on the fire escape outside the parking lot. Without the defendant's permission, it should be considered that the plaintiff did not actually deliver the vehicle to the defendant for management, and the legal relationship between the two parties in vehicle parking management was not established. According to the case, the plaintiff's vehicle had driven into the parking lot of the community, but it was driven out because of the lack of parking spaces, and finally chose the fire escape outside the parking lot. After parking, the plaintiff asked the defendant's security guard Lian, and Lian replied that it was generally fine. It can be seen that the defendant did not object to the plaintiff's parking behavior, nor did he stop or warn of the serious consequences of parking in this position. The behavior of the defendant's staff showed that the defendant acquiesced that the plaintiff's vehicle could be parked on the residential road outside the parking lot. The defendant's acquiescence should be considered as the temporary extension of the parking lot. Therefore, the defendant has the same management obligation to the plaintiff's vehicles parked there as the parking lot vehicles. If the plaintiff's vehicle leaves the community without inspection, the defendant shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation.

(2) The plaintiff failed to fulfill the management obligation of his vehicle and should bear part of the responsibility.

As the owner of the community, the plaintiff parks his car in the community parking lot every day, and should be very clear about the facilities and vehicle access system of the community parking lot. Article 5 of the Parking Management Regulations publicly posted outside the parking lot clearly reminds that vehicles must be parked in designated parking spaces, and parking in pedestrian walkways, fire exits and non-parking spaces is strictly prohibited. The plaintiff should also know the content. The case involved vehicles entering and leaving the community parking lot, and there was no parking door at the entrance and exit of the community outside the parking lot. Obviously, the defendant can't check the vehicles outside the parking lot by swiping his card. Parking at the place involved may lead to the risk of loss, and parking should be foreseen. The security guard even said that there was no problem under normal circumstances, suggesting that there might be problems under special circumstances. In addition, the plaintiff stopped the car around the early morning of March 9, but it was not until March 14 10 that the car was lost. It can be seen that the plaintiff did not pay enough attention to the vehicles parked outside the parking lot, which violated the Regulations on the Administration of Residential Parking Lot, which was one of the reasons for the theft of vehicles, and its own fault should bear part of the responsibility.

Please refer to! I hope I can help you!