Liability for loss of automobile property in parking lot

The situations that the parking lot is not responsible for vehicle damage mainly include: there is no special agreement on the temporary parking lot; Free parking lot without gross negligence; Other circumstances stipulated by law. According to the 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 compensation. However, if the unpaid custodian proves that he has no intention or gross negligence, he shall not be liable for compensation.

Legal objectivity:

There is a big gap in judicial practice in disputes caused by the loss of cars under custody contracts. According to Article 374 of the Contract Law, "during the storage period, if the goods are damaged or lost due to improper storage by the custodian, the custodian shall be liable for damages, but the custodian shall be free of charge. If the custodian proves that he has no gross negligence, he shall not be liable for damages." For the disputes over the loss of vehicles in the parking lot, it is necessary to comprehensively judge whether the custody contract relationship is established and whether the custody contract is paid or unpaid. If there is sufficient evidence to prove that there is a custody contract relationship between the two parties, if it is paid, the custodian shall be liable for compensation and compensate the depositor for all the losses caused by the loss of the vehicle. In the case of keeping the contract free of charge, under normal circumstances, the custodian shall also bear the liability for compensation, but if the custodian can prove that he has no gross negligence, he may be exempted from the liability for compensation. In practice, there is the problem of how the trustee can prove whether there is gross negligence. Under normal circumstances, it is actually impossible for the parties to prove their nonexistent behavior. Therefore, there are some defects in Article 374 of the Contract Law, which need to be remedied in the trial practice. If the custodian can prove that he has fulfilled the obligations of the custodian, that is, he has fulfilled the same duty of care as he has kept his own property, he should be deemed to have fulfilled the burden of proof to prove that he has no gross negligence.