Is there any responsibility for the property that entered the thief's house?

1. You can sue. "Regulations on Property Management" Article 36 A property management enterprise shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract. If the property management enterprise fails to perform the property service contract, causing personal and property safety damage to the owner, it shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities according to law. The probability of winning the case is 70%. I think it depends on the police investigation. If you have greater responsibility, you may lose the case. After winning the case, I will pay 30% at most. Let me show you some precedents: Is the property management responsible for the loss of commercial theft? The owner was broken into by thieves and a lot of property was stolen, so he sued the property company for compensation. Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court made a major final judgment on this case, and ordered the property company to compensate the owners for 20% losses caused by lax supervision. Thieves broke into the house for nearly 60,000 yuan. On the evening of February 22, 2004, 65,438+,Zhang, who lives in a certain district of Torch Development Zone in Zhongshan City, found that the situation was not good when he got home: he saw that the locks of his steel security door and wooden door were broken, and the whole door was damaged and deformed. When I entered the room, I saw the cabinets and clothes in a mess and reported the case. According to statistics, Zhang Jiazhong was robbed of 8,300 yuan in cash, computers 1 set, digital cameras 1 set, gold ornaments 1 batch and 2 sets of commemorative coins, with a loss value of 59,560 yuan. The case has not been solved so far. The owner claimed compensation from the property management company. In Zhang's view, he pays the property management fee every month and gives his property to the property company for care. Now thieves have entered the house and the property company is unconscious. In any case, there is negligence in management, and he should compensate himself for all the losses. After the incident, Zhang found a property company to negotiate compensation, but the company ignored it. Zhang sued the property management company to the Zhongshan People's Court, demanding that the company compensate for various losses of 59,560 yuan. The property company is still unwilling to bear the losses of the owners. According to the property management company, its management services have reached the national ISO900 1 management quality certification, and the security guard duty system and shift system have been earnestly implemented, and the vehicle entry and exit registration system has been completed. Unfortunately, thieves are fierce, and car owners should claim compensation from thieves through public security organs. Property management: security guards have done their duty. The property management fee paid by the owner cannot completely eliminate the property and personal safety risks that may be brought about by criminal acts. The company has fulfilled the corresponding duty of care and prevention, and there is no fault in the plaintiff's theft case, so the defendant should not be liable for compensation. The property company provided the court with the records of its security guards patrolling at the gate of the community and in the community when the theft occurred. After investigation, on May 2 1 2000, after Zhang moved into a residence in Zhongshan Torch Development Zone, he signed the Convention on the Management of Residential Quarters with the property management company, stipulating that the property management company would manage the residential quarters according to the principle of paid services, and Zhang would pay the comprehensive management service fee according to the standard of 0.5 yuan/square meter/month. After the agreement was signed, Zhang paid the management fee on time as agreed. First instance: the property company does not need compensation. The court of first instance held that when the property management service contract was fulfilled, the property management company formulated a system to properly manage the vehicles and personnel entering and leaving the community through registration, and fulfilled the duty of reasonable and prudent care for the property of the residents in the community. Zhang did not sign a special custody contract with the property company for the items in the house, and the property company has no way of knowing the types and values of Zhang's personal items, so it is not legally responsible for this. At present, the case of Zhang's theft has not been detected, and the amount of property loss cannot be confirmed. The court of first instance rejected Zhang's request for compensation from the property company. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Zhang refused to accept it and appealed to the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court, claiming that the property company promised to provide all-weather and all-round protection for residential properties and personnel. As the owner, all the property in the house is under the protection of the property management company after going to work and school. In this case, the theft was caused by the serious breach of contract and dereliction of duty of the property company. Second instance: the property company should pay 20%. After trial, Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court held that the property company promised to ensure the personal and property safety of residential property and residents in the convention, residential management regulations and other documents. The evidence in this case shows that when the theft happened, the criminal suspect violently destroyed two doors of Zhang's house (one of which was a steel security door), entered the room and rummaged through the closet to steal property and left. It can be seen that the property company obviously neglected the public security patrol of residential quarters, failed to detect and stop criminal acts in time, and was at fault for the losses it caused, and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation. Because the case happened indoors, burglary was difficult to find, and the owner was mainly responsible for the safety of his indoor property, so the court ruled that the property company should bear 20% liability for compensation. Moreover, because the appellant Zhang presented credible evidence when reporting the case to the public security organ, and the property management company did not submit evidence to refute it in the second instance proceedings, our court determined that Zhang's loss was 59,560 yuan, that is, the amount of compensation that the property management company should bear was 1 19 12 yuan. Judge: Property management failed to fulfill its security obligations. The judge of the court told the reporter that the final judgment of the case should attract the attention of the property company and fulfill its security obligations within reasonable limits in daily management. Security obligation refers to the obligation of operators or other social activity organizers to protect the personal and property safety of others within a reasonable limit. If the obligor fails to perform the security obligation within a reasonable limit and directly or indirectly causes damage to the personal or property rights and interests of others, he shall be liable for damages. In this case, due to the negligence of the property management company, the owner's property was not found stolen in time, and there was a fault. Therefore, the property company should bear the supplementary compensation liability equivalent to its fault within a reasonable limit. After the property company bears the corresponding liability for compensation, it has the right to recover after the public security organ catches the thief. The owner sued for property theft [date: May 22, 2007] www. 1000security.com Qianjia Security Network [font: large, medium and small] This newspaper (reporter) sued the property to the court after Mr. Dong's home was stolen, arguing that the property prevented him from installing anti-theft doors and windows, which caused losses. A few days ago, Haidian Court concluded the case and ruled that Mr. Dong lost the case. On September 7, 2006, Mr. Dong found a place to live after work, and his house in Xinxin Jiayuan, Haidian District was stolen. Mr. Dong said that his residence is on 1 floor. When he moved in, he asked to install anti-theft doors and windows, but the property said that anti-theft measures were complete and he was not allowed to install them. At the time of the incident, the configuration of 1 security guard on each floor of the community was changed to 4 buildings 1 security guard, and the alarm telephone number in the building was out of date and was not updated in time. Even when the police entered the community to investigate, they found that the indoor infrared anti-theft system could not be used normally, and the security monitoring device in the community was ineffective, and there was no record at the time of the incident. Therefore, Mr. Dong thinks that the property does not protect the property safety of the owner, and should compensate the stolen jewelry of 65,438 yuan+0,500 yuan, 8,000 yuan and 30,000 yuan. The court held that the two parties had no objection to the contents of the Regulations on the Management of House Decoration prohibiting the balcony and terrace from being closed in any form and the installation of anything outside the room and window, and the regulations should be effective. At the same time, the security service included in the property service is the security of public areas in the community, excluding the property custody in the owner's house. We can't ask the property security service to prevent all thefts. Owners should also enhance their awareness of prevention. On the premise that an external security window cannot be installed, they can also take measures such as installing a built-in protective device. The consequences of property theft should not be borne by the property.