The hosted computer contained photos of deceased relatives. Can compensation for mental distress be claimed after theft?
Chef Gong claimed that his stolen computer contained photos and videos of his deceased relatives, and he sought 5,000 yuan in compensation for mental distress from his employer. Recently, the Shunyi Court accepted the case.
Gong alleged that starting from August 25, 2014, his luggage was kept by the catering company he worked for. Five days later, he found his suitcase pried open and his laptop stolen. The laptop contained photos and videos of his deceased mother and grandparents, with no backups. The incident caused him great emotional distress. He sued the company, demanding 2,900 yuan for the laptop loss and 5,000 yuan for mental distress compensation.
The catering company argued that while Gong's laptop was indeed lost on the premises, it was purchased three years ago. The company agreed to compensate 2,000 yuan for the laptop loss. Additionally, the company disputed that the laptop contained photos and videos of Gong's relatives and refused to pay mental distress compensation.
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.
If the storage is for compensation, the custodian shall bear liability for damages for the damage or loss of the stored item during the storage period, unless the custodian can prove no fault. The phrase "unless the custodian can prove no fault" means the custodian can demonstrate that proper care has been exercised. If the damage or loss of the stored item is caused by the nature of the item itself or by packaging that does not conform to the agreement, the custodian shall not be liable.
If the storage is gratuitous, the custodian shall bear liability for damages for the damage or loss of the stored item caused by intentional acts or gross negligence. "Gross negligence" refers to the custodian's reckless action or inaction while knowing that it may cause damage or loss to the stored item. 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 Railway Transport Damage Compensation Cases," meaning that a railway transport enterprise or its employees or agents recklessly act or fail to act while knowing that it may cause loss to the carried goods, parcels, or luggage.
The difference between gratuitous custody and paid custody is: in the case of paid custody, regardless of whether the custodian acts intentionally or negligently, the custodian shall be liable for the damage or loss of the deposited property; in the case of gratuitous custody, the custodian is only liable for the damage or loss of the deposited property caused by intentional acts or gross negligence, and is not liable for minor negligence. The commonality between the two is: in any case where the damage or loss of the deposited property is caused by reasons not attributable to the custodian, no liability for damages shall be borne.
