The owner asked the security guard to take a parking, and the car was clamped to the property!Is the property responsible?

"Reversing, pouring again, 'kill'"

"boom!"

"Oops!"

Obviously out of good intentions

But inadvertently did bad things

The vehicle caused by improper command

Who should be responsible?

Consortium instructed but was claimed

In Xiamen, Fujian, Xiao Chen drove a new car to return to his community. Because the car skills were not skilled, the community security guard Lao Zheng helped to direct when parking. Unexpectedly, when the car is reversing, Xiao Chen's car is stunned with other vehicles, and both cars have different degrees of damage.

After the incident, the traffic police issued an accident identification letter, arguing that Xiao Chen should be responsible for the accident.

Subsequently, Xiaochen Property Company, as a parking lot manager, should bear the losses caused by the accident to sue the property company to the People's Court of Haicang District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province.

The plaintiff Xiao Chen believes that because of the improper command of the security guard, his car was causing his car with other vehicles. The property company where Lao Zheng is located should bear more than 5,000 yuan in losses caused by the accident.

The defendant property company argued that the plaintiff Xiao Chen had a scratch incident and should bear the responsibility by himself. He should not be unreasonable to unrelated personnel.

Court: Reject! The plaintiff's owner is responsible

After hearing, the People's Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province believed that this case was a dispute over the infringement. The liability for infringement damage must be reviewed whether it has infringement, subjective fault, victim loss, and causal relationship.

The existing evidence cannot prove that Lao Zheng's act of directing the plaintiff Xiao Chen's parking. Even if the community security old Zheng Cun was in command and assist in parking, this behavior was also a "good intention" behavior, and was not in the field of security and guarantee obligations of the defendant's property company.

Without evidence to prove that Lao Zheng had fault, the plaintiff Xiao Chen, as an operator of a driving vehicle, was responsible for the occurrence of the accident.

As a result, the People's Court of Haicang District, Xiamen City, Fujian provided a verdict in accordance with the law to reject all the claims of the plaintiff Xiao Chen.

Do you need to be responsible for the behavior of "good intentions"?

The behavior of "good intentions" is also called friendship, that is, the actor is engaged in the purpose of establishing, maintaining or enhancement of the relationship between concerns with others and love.

The community security command and assistance of parking behaviors are not the scope of security obligations of the defendant's property company, and belong to "good intentions" behavior. Except for intentional or severe loss of others, it should not bear the liability for infringement.

As a driver's vehicle operator, the plaintiff Xiao Chen should be responsible for the occurrence of the accident, which is the principle of "steering wheel".

Source: CCTV today, the People's Court of Haicang District, Xiamen City

- END -