Who will pay for the lost car in the parking lot?

With the improvement of people's living standards, the number of motor vehicles, especially private cars, has gradually increased, and the corresponding cases of motor vehicle loss have also increased rapidly. According to the statistics of a foreign court, motor vehicle losses mostly occur in parking lots of hotels, restaurants and other consumer places, public parking lots engaged in foreign-related parking business, and parking lots of residential quarters. Moreover, the detection rate of such cases is very low, and it is difficult to find the direct infringer of car theft. Even if a car thief is found, it may not be able to recover the stolen car, and these car thieves often have little compensation ability. Then, in the case that it is impossible to recover from the direct infringer, most car owners think of the parking lot and claim compensation from the parking lot. Then, the loss of motor vehicles, whether the operator or owner of the parking lot is responsible, how much responsibility, and whether the owner can get compensation from the parking lot? Because the case of car owners claiming compensation from parking lots is a new type of case that has only developed in recent years, there is no unified judgment standard in the whole country, and the courts all over the country have different legal applications for such disputes, resulting in different judgment results, and it is even in the exploratory stage in Dongying. A few years ago, Dongying court generally ruled that the parking lot was not liable, but in 2008 and 2009, the court began to change its thinking and ruled that the parking lot was liable. Based on the experience of our law firm in handling such disputes, combined with the cases of the national and Dongying courts, this paper talks about the laws of the courts in handling such disputes, so that everyone can properly safeguard their rights and interests when handling disputes. To deal with this kind of disputes, we should first define the legal relationship between the parking lot and the owner of the motor vehicle, and then determine whether the parking lot should be liable for the loss of the motor vehicle and what kind of responsibility it should bear according to different legal relationships. Generally speaking, the relationship between the parking lot and the motor vehicle owner mainly involves legal relations such as custody contract, lease contract, incidental obligation of consumption contract, safety guarantee obligation, etc. So how to distinguish the legal relationship between the parking lot and the motor vehicle owner in this dispute? (I) Relationship of Custody Contract According to the provisions of the Contract Law, a custody contract is a contract in which the custodian keeps the deposit delivered by the depositor and returns it. A custody contract is concluded when the deposit is delivered, and the custodian shall properly keep the deposit. During the storage period, if the deposit is damaged due to improper storage by the custodian, the custodian shall be liable for damages. For parking lots and car owners, the establishment of a vehicle storage contract must first have an agreement on vehicle storage between the two parties. This agreement can be express or implied. In daily life, this kind of agreement is mostly implied, and the implied agreement must be supported by sufficient objective facts, such as the owner delivering the vehicle to the parking lot for actual possession or control. Secondly, there must be the delivery of the deposit, and the delivery of the vehicle is an important element for the establishment of the vehicle storage contract. As a special movable property, the delivery of motor vehicles is also special. The parking lot only parks the motor vehicle in the designated parking space, which cannot actually control and manage the motor vehicle and does not constitute delivery. Only when the owner submits the motor vehicle driving license or car key to the parking lot, the parking lot will issue the parking license or car pick-up certificate to the owner, or the owner will not deliver the motor vehicle driving license or car key to the parking lot, but will issue the car pick-up certificate to the owner according to the habit. Only with this certificate can the owner pick up the car from the parking lot, which can show that the parking lot, as the custodian, has accepted the delivery of the motor vehicle and actually possessed and controlled it. Only in this way can the owner and the parking lot form a contractual relationship of vehicle custody. (II) Relationship of Lease Contract A lease contract refers to a contract in which both parties agree that within a certain period, one party will transfer a specific property to the other party for use or income, and the other party will pay the rent and return the leased property at the expiration of the period. Simply put, a lease contract is a contract in which the usufructuary right of the subject matter and the rent are transferred. It can be seen that the institutional value of the lease contract lies in meeting the needs of consumers to use goods and the needs of owners to realize the value of goods. In the dispute of motor vehicle loss claim, the lease contract involved is the lease contract of the parking lot, and the leased property is the land use right of the parking lot. The owner temporarily parks the leased property, so he pays the corresponding use remuneration to the parking lot provider. The owner drives the motor vehicle into the corresponding parking space designated by the parking lot, which means that the parking lot has delivered the parking space to the owner for use. In real life, if the parking lot only collects parking fees from the owner, or issues a special invoice for the parking amount to the owner, the owner can drive the car away at any time without a ticket, then the actual control of the motor vehicle is not delivered to the parking lot, and it is impossible to form a vehicle custody contract relationship. The relationship between the owner and the parking lot is only the relationship of venue lease contract. At this time, the parking lot has no custody obligation and cannot claim compensation. After the custody contract relationship is formed, it is only one of the conditions for the parking lot to bear the liability for compensation. In addition, there is a condition that the parking lot is at fault. According to Article 374 of the Contract Law: "During the storage period, if the deposit is damaged or lost due to improper storage by the custodian, the custodian shall be liable for damages, but the storage is free of charge, and the custodian shall not be liable for compensation if he proves that he has no gross negligence." It can be seen that, different from the strict liability of ordinary contracts, the custodian in the custody contract bears a kind of fault liability, that is, the custodian should pay attention to the manager and take good care of the motor vehicle. Only when the custodian is at fault, does not actively perform the custody obligation, acts improperly and takes improper custody measures, can the custodian be liable for damages to the trustee. Specifically, if the vehicle is damaged or lost due to force majeure or accidents, such as earthquakes, the parking lot will not be liable for no-fault compensation. If the vehicle is stolen, the parking lot has the fault of improper storage, such as the parking lot has no necessary sealing measures, the security guards have not carried out normal patrols, and suspicious persons have not carried out necessary inspections and inquiries when entering the parking lot, etc., the parking lot must be liable for compensation to the owner. The vehicle was robbed and cannot be generalized. Because robbery is sudden, unpredictable and difficult to prevent, as a parking lot, even if it is properly kept, it cannot completely avoid such crimes. Responsibility should be analyzed in detail. If criminals are given an opportunity because of the unfavorable storage measures of the parking lot, the parking lot should bear the corresponding liability for compensation according to its own fault. If the crime of robbery is completely unavoidable, it should be based on the principle of self-responsibility, and sometimes the criminals of robbery should be liable for compensation. For example, in a case, several criminals threatened the security guards with guns to hand over their vehicles, tied the security guards with ropes and drove away. In this case, the parking lot is not responsible. According to Article 2 16 of the Contract Law: "The lessor shall deliver the lease item to the lessee as agreed, and keep the lease item in line with the agreed purpose during the lease period." This is the main obligation of the lessor in the lease contract. The lessor is generally not responsible for the lessee's use of the leased property. On the contrary, if the lessee improperly uses the leased property, it shall be liable for compensation. When the relationship between the owner and the parking lot is a venue lease contract, and the parking lot delivers the parking space suitable for parking motor vehicles to the owner for parking, the parking lot has fulfilled all the obligations in the contract, and does not undertake any obligation to look after the motor vehicles parked in the parking space, nor does it undertake any liability for compensation for motor vehicle losses. (3) The incidence of vehicle loss in parking lots of compulsory hotels, restaurants, shopping malls and other consumer and entertainment places attached to the consumption contract is also relatively high. Hotels, restaurants, shopping malls and other consumer entertainment places generally do not specialize in parking business, and the affiliated parking lot (ground) is an ancillary supporting facility provided for the convenience of consumers to receive services. When consumers spend money in these places, the legal relationship they usually form with hotels and restaurants is mainly the consumer service relationship. Therefore, once their vehicles are lost in the parking lots attached to these places, it is a difficult problem to determine and deal with them according to what legal relationship. Judging from the trial experience of courts all over the country and the experience of such cases represented by our lawyers, it is difficult to directly determine that parking in these places belongs to the custody contract relationship unless the two sides have established a clear vehicle custody contract relationship. Because this kind of vehicle care is formed because of consumption in restaurants and other places, it is attached to the relationship of consumer services, which is different from the simple venue rental relationship. However, the consumer's vehicle loss is always borne by the consumer's location, and its legal basis is the collateral obligation of the contract. According to Article 60 of the Contract Law, the parties shall abide by the principle of good faith and fulfill the obligations of notification, assistance and confidentiality according to the nature, purpose and trading habits of the contract. Collateral obligation is not the main obligation of the contract, but the obligation attached to the main obligation. The obligor of a contract shall not only perform the principal obligation of the contract, but also perform the subordinate obligation of the contract. In real life, when car owners drive to hotels, hotels and other places of consumption and entertainment, the parking lot attached to this place is generally an ancillary facility provided for the convenience of consumers to accept consumer services, and the parking care service provided by this parking lot is an accompanying obligation of the consumer service contract. The debtor should still bear the corresponding legal responsibility for violating the collateral obligation. As a collateral obligation, parking custody is not independent, but its essence is the same as that of an independent motor vehicle custody contract. Consumer entertainment units and their accompanying parking lots shall bear the obligation of safekeeping, and shall be liable for compensation for motor vehicle losses caused by improper management and other faults. In addition, when the court hears such cases, there will be a problem of "balance of interests", especially in the absence of targeted legal norms, the court will use the principle of fairness stipulated by law to balance the interests of all parties to the dispute and minimize the losses of all parties. At the same time, the responsibilities of all parties will be determined according to the fault degree of the owner and the parking lot. The so-called "fault degree" here includes intention, gross negligence, general negligence and no fault. When handling such cases, the court will determine the compensation ratio according to the fault of the parking lot party. According to the incomplete statistics of our leading law firm, there are few cases in which parking lots take full responsibility, whether in the national or local courts. For the above contents, please refer to the broadcast lecture-Legal Interpretation of Motor Vehicle Loss in Parking Lot.