The hosted computer contained photos of deceased relatives. Can compensation for mental distress be claimed after theft?

Chef Gong claimed that the stolen computer contained photos and videos of deceased relatives and demanded 5,000 yuan in compensation for emotional distress from his employer. The Shunyi Court recently accepted the case.

Gong alleged that starting from August 25, 2014, his luggage was kept in the custody of the catering company where he worked. Five days later, he discovered that his suitcase had been pried open and the laptop inside had been stolen. The laptop contained photos and videos of his deceased mother and grandparents, for which he had no backup. This incident caused him immense emotional distress. He filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the catering company compensate him 2,900 yuan for the loss of the computer and 5,000 yuan for emotional damages.

The catering company argued that Gong's laptop was indeed lost at the workplace, but it had been purchased three years earlier, and the company agreed to compensate 2,000 yuan for the loss of the computer. In addition, the catering company denied that the laptop contained photos and videos of Gong's family members and refused to pay compensation for emotional distress.

Currently, this case is under further investigation.

(Beijing Times)

If the stored item is damaged or lost during the storage period, the custodian shall bear liability.

The custodian shall fulfill the duty of proper care for the stored item. During the storage period, if the stored item is damaged or lost due to improper care, the custodian shall, in principle, bear liability for damages. The extent of the custodian's liability may differ depending on whether the storage is for compensation or gratuitous.

Custody is compensated, and the custodian shall be liable for damages for the destruction or loss of the deposited property during the custody period, unless the custodian can prove that it is not at fault. The so-called "unless the custodian can prove that it is not at fault" means that the custodian can prove that it has fulfilled the obligation of proper custody. If the destruction or loss of the deposited property is caused by the nature of the deposited property itself or by packaging that does not conform to the agreement, the custodian shall not be liable either.

Custody is gratuitous, and the custodian shall be liable for damages if the deposited property is damaged or lost due to the custodian’s intentional act or gross negligence. The so-called “gross negligence” refers to the custodian’s reckless act or omission despite knowing that it may cause damage to or loss of the deposited property. The Supreme People’s Court once interpreted “gross negligence” in Article 17 of the Railway Law in its Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases of Compensation for Damage in Railway Transport, that is, the railway transport enterprise or its employees or agents recklessly act or omit to act while knowing that losses may be caused to the goods, parcels, or luggage under transport.

The difference between gratuitous custody and compensated custody is as follows: in the case of compensated custody, the custodian is liable for the damage or loss of the deposited property regardless of whether the custodian acted intentionally or negligently; in the case of gratuitous custody, the custodian is liable only for the damage or loss of the deposited property caused by intent or gross negligence, and is not liable for slight negligence. What the two have in common is that in no case shall the custodian be liable for damages where the damage or loss of the deposited property is caused by reasons not attributable to the custodian.