Is the property company liable for compensation if the owner's property is stolen?

Li, the owner of a residential area in this city, came home from work on the afternoon of 20 13 and found it stolen. He immediately reported the case to the public security organ, claiming that the stolen property included cash, jewelry and watches. , total value120,000 yuan. The public security organs have not been able to arrest the suspects since they filed a case for investigation. While paying attention to the progress of the public security organs in solving the case, Li demanded compensation from the property company. The property management company said: the owner knows that it is unsafe to store valuables at home, but he goes his own way. The responsibility for theft should be borne by the owner Li. After hearing the reply from the property management company, Li asked angrily, "Home is a harbor, and home is not safe. Where can it be safe? " I would like to ask: Li Can's home was stolen, can you sue the court and ask the property company to bear the liability for compensation?

[Comment] Li asked the court to order the property company to bear the liability for compensation for the theft of his residence, and his right to appeal was beyond doubt. The essence of the problem lies in how high Li's winning rate is. In order to win a higher success rate, it is necessary for Li to clarify the following ideas before suing:

First, the owner must make clear the legal responsibility and agreed responsibility of the property company for burglary.

Responsibility comes from obligation. The owner asked the property company to bear the liability for compensation for the loss of the stolen house. First of all, we must clarify the management service obligations of the property company to the owner's community. Its obligations include legal obligations and contractual obligations.

The fourth chapter of the Property Management Regulations specifies the statutory management service obligations of property companies, which mainly includes three obligations, namely, the maintenance and repair obligations of public facilities, equipment and places; Environmental sanitation, garden green space maintenance obligations and security obligations including public safety. This case involves the public security obligation of the property company. In this regard, the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Property Management Regulations stipulates: "Property service enterprises shall assist in the safety precautions within the property management area. When a safety accident occurs, the realty service enterprise shall, while taking emergency measures, report to the relevant administrative departments in time to assist in the rescue work. The realty service enterprise shall abide by the relevant provisions of the state when hiring security personnel. When maintaining public order in the property management area, security personnel shall perform their duties and shall not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of citizens. " According to this regulation, the security of the property company has the legal obligation of public security, that is, to be responsible for the public security order in the community, to stop and call the police in time when violence, theft and other illegal and criminal cases are found, and to assist the public security organs in investigating and performing other duties.

The agreed management service obligations of the property company shall conform to the provisions of Article 35 of the Property Management Regulations, and the owners' committee shall conclude a written property service contract with the property service enterprise selected by the owners' congress. Property service contracts shall stipulate property management matters, service quality, service fees, rights and obligations of both parties, management and use of special maintenance funds, property management premises, contract term, liability for breach of contract, etc. "and Article 36" The realty service enterprise shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the stipulations of the realty service contract. If the realty service enterprise fails to fulfill the stipulations of the realty service contract, causing personal and property safety damage to the owner, it shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities according to law. "The provisions of the owners' committee on behalf of the owners, and the owners' congress selected property companies to sign a property service contract. The contract law does not stipulate the property service contract, which is anonymous and most similar to the entrustment contract. The liability for breach of contract of realty service contract can be handled with reference to the relevant provisions of contract law on entrustment contract. According to the provisions of the "Contract Law" on the application of the principle of fault liability in the entrustment contract, if the owner requests the property company to compensate for the loss of home theft, it shall examine whether the property company is at fault in fulfilling its statutory or agreed management service obligations. It must be clear that the contractual obligations of property management companies are mainly management services, which are different from the contractual obligations of trustees in custody contracts. Therefore, it is inappropriate to characterize property management service contracts as custody contracts. Unless the property management service contract specifically stipulates the custody obligation of the property company, if it is specifically stipulated that the property owner's home property is damaged, lost or stolen, the property company shall bear the responsibility. Otherwise, the property in the owner's home does not belong to the statutory or agreed management service scope of the property company.

Second, the owner must choose the lawsuit of breach of contract and the lawsuit of infringement before suing the property company.

The property of the owner's home is stolen, and the theft suspect is the ultimate responsible person. Before the public security organ detects the theft case, if the owner verifies that the property company is at fault, he has the right to ask him to bear the liability for compensation. In order to improve the success rate or compensation amount, the owner should make a choice when the lawsuit of breach of contract and tort coexist according to the evidence collected before the prosecution. Although the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Property Management Regulations stipulates the statutory management service obligation of the property company, it has also become the legal basis for the owner to require the property company to bear the liability for compensation, laying a legal foundation for the concurrence of the liability for breach of contract and the liability for tort in the case of infringement by a third party. According to Article 122 of the Contract Law, if one party violates the personal rights and property rights of the other party at the same time, it constitutes the concurrence of liability for breach of contract and tort liability. Due to the differences between the liability for breach of contract and tort in terms of constitutive requirements, limitation of action, scope of responsibility, principle of imputation and burden of proof, etc. Owners know little about this kind of professional problems, and determining the basis of claim right will be related to the success or failure of litigation. Before prosecution, they must consult a lawyer or judge and make the right choice under the explanation or guidance of legal professionals.

Third, the loss mainly collects evidence such as the name, quality and amount of stolen property. No matter whether the owner brings a breach of contract lawsuit or an infringement lawsuit, he should bear the burden of proof for the theft fact and the actual loss amount according to law. In the case that the theft has not been detected, the owner requires the property management company to bear the liability for compensation, and must cite invoices and other evidence to prove the name, specification, model and purchase price of the stolen property. It will be difficult for the judge to recognize the owner's self-report or use the report record as evidence for prosecution. If the owner can't prove the stolen goods and the amount, the judge generally applies the principle of punishment before the people, suspends the trial of the default or infringement lawsuit filed by the owner against the property company, and resumes the trial after the criminal case is concluded. Some judges simply reject the owner's claim on the grounds that the owner has no evidence to prove the amount of loss, which leads to the uncertainty of the consequences of breach of contract or infringement losses.

Fourth, owners should take effective anti-theft measures against valuables at home. In this case, the property management company thinks that the owner should not leave his valuables at home. After hearing this, the owner should be calm, not angry, and check whether the anti-theft awareness and measures are in place, whether there is luck and dependence on the property management company. For example, whether to buy a family safe, whether to put valuables in the safe, whether to insure family property insurance or Ping An property insurance, whether to keep the purchase invoice of valuables, whether to lock the door when there is no one at home, whether to specifically agree with the property management company on the obligation to keep family property in the property management service contract, and so on.

To sum up, just like passers-by being stolen or robbed on the road, public security police, public security brigade or public security organs are not liable for compensation. On the premise that the security of the property company only bears the legal or agreed obligation of public security, the property company should not be responsible for the theft of valuables from the owner's home, unless the property management service contract specifically stipulates that the property company has the obligation to keep valuables from the owner's home. Moreover, in the case that the criminal case of theft has not been detected by the public security organs, it is difficult for the owner to prove the stolen valuables and the amount of their losses. Therefore, it is difficult for the owner to ask the property company for compensation to get the satisfaction of the property company or the support of the judge.