Please refer to a judgment case.
Motorcycle unit theft dispute
Sichuan Online-Sichuan Daily News Should the company be held responsible for the theft of employees' vehicles parked in the company? On the morning of June 30th, the People's Court of Wuhou District of Chengdu held a public hearing in Baihua Community to hear such a case, and the judge finally ruled that the unit in the case was liable for 40% compensation.
On the morning of June 5438+065438+1October 25th, 2004, Wu Songtao, a mechanic of Chengdu Deyi Leather Shoes Factory (who did not sign a labor contract), found that his motorcycle parked at the parking spot in the factory was stolen and reported it to the public security organ. Later, Wu Songtao filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that Liu Dejian, the owner of Deyi Leather Shoes Factory, compensate his motorcycle for the loss of 39 1 1 yuan.
During the trial, the original defendant debated whether there was a labor relationship between them, whether the defendant violated relevant obligations, and the amount of compensation. Liu Dejian argued that the plaintiff was not an employee of the factory, and the two parties did not establish a guardianship contract relationship, so the unit should not bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
There are different opinions on whether the unit should compensate.
Should the unit compensate for the stolen car in the internal parking spot? Different people have different opinions. Most ordinary citizens think that the unit should pay compensation.
Yang Qian, a lawyer of Kochi Law Firm, holds a different view. She believes that providing parking spaces for employees free of charge only provides convenience for employees to go to work. Whether the two sides form a legal guardianship contract relationship is worth pondering. Because the legal custody contract is the agreement of the custodian to keep the deposit delivered by the depositor and return it. In this process, the custodian not only actually owns, but also controls what he keeps.
Lawyer Yang believes that even if the two parties form a custody contract relationship, the contract law stipulates that "custody is free, and the custodian will not be liable for damages if he proves that he has no gross negligence", that is, unless the unit has gross negligence, it will be liable for compensation.
Lawyer Yang Qian believes that in another case, the consumer delivers the car at the toll parking spot and forms a clear custody contract with the car watcher, who must fulfill the corresponding custody obligations. In the case of clear responsibility, the car watcher shall make compensation according to the actual loss of the sender.
The court ruled that the unit was responsible for 40
After investigation and trial, 50% of the judges believe that Wu Songtao is a temporary worker in the German-Italian leather shoes factory, and the unit has the responsibility to protect the legitimate rights and interests of employees' personal property during their work. The employee's vehicle was stolen in the unit, which is that the unit failed to fulfill its social security obligations. As the lost car has not been found out, the unit bears 40% of the purchase fare of 3600 yuan. Finally, the judge pronounced in court that the defendant paid the plaintiff the motorcycle damages 1440 yuan.
According to the reporter's understanding, the focus of the court's trial in this case is not on whether the two parties form a guardianship contract relationship, but on the scope of the labor contract relationship. The court held that due to the fact that the two sides formed a labor relationship, the labor law stipulated that the personal rights of workers were inviolable and their property rights were inviolable. In this case, employees parked their cars in the carport, and the factory should actively and properly protect employees' property rights. If the motorcycle is stolen due to the negligence of the factory, the factory should be liable for compensation. Five Laws Zhang Ying Our reporter Yu Yiyong Editor: Qiu Shui