How did the court decide that the security guard was sued after helping the owner direct parking? How to treat the behavior of car owners?

The court rejected the owner's claim, and the owner's behavior was excessive and immoral.

The owner returned to the community, because the driving skills were not good, and asked the community security for help when parking. However, the security guard scraped his car while reversing, causing the two cars to be damaged to varying degrees. Afterwards, the traffic police issued an accident liability certificate, arguing that the owner should bear all the responsibilities. The owner confirmed that the security guard had misdirected, so he took the security guard and the property management company to court. In the end, the court made a fair judgment that neither the property company nor the security guard was at fault, and rejected all the claims of the owners.

The owner's behavior is outrageous and immoral, because the security guard has no obligation and responsibility to direct the owner to reverse the car, which is beyond the scope of security work. He is not good at driving himself, so he can't park in the parking space normally when parking. He asked the community security guard to help with the command. This is just a kind act, which is not within the scope of security work, and his own car skills are not good, resulting in two cars scraping. The responsibility should not be placed on the security guard, and neither should the property management company.

The owner took the property company and the security guard to court, arguing that the improper command of the security guard caused his vehicle to scrape other people's vehicles, and the property company, as the manager of the parking lot, should also bear the corresponding responsibility and demand the security guard and the property company to pay 5000 yuan. The property management company thinks that the owner's own vehicle scraped with other vehicles and caused the traffic accident, because the responsibility should not be pushed to the property management company and the security guard.

After hearing the case, the court held that the owner's appeal could not be supported and protected by law, because the behavior of community public security command and parking assistance was only good intentions, and the poetry club only volunteered to help without compensation, which was not his job and had nothing to do with the property company. As the driver of the vehicle, the owner should bear all the responsibilities of the accident, so he refused all the requests of the owner. After the incident was posted online, he thought that the owner's behavior was excessive and should be condemned by social moral public opinion.