Goods damaged due to improper storage, should free storage compensate?
Compiled from: Yishui Court
Case review
Han, who runs a convenience store in the neighborhood, was asked by Liu, a resident, to temporarily store ten boxes of office paper delivered while Liu was away. Han reluctantly agreed due to community ties, stacking the goods at the store entrance and warning Liu to retrieve them promptly, disclaiming responsibility for loss or damage.
(Image source from the internet, delete upon infringement)
Due to a busy work schedule, Liu did not go to Han’s place to collect the goods for two consecutive days. On the third day, a heavy rainstorm suddenly struck. Busy sorting out his own goods, Han forgot to move Liu’s office paper indoors. By the time he discovered it, the office paper had been completely soaked by rainwater and was unusable. When Liu came to collect it, he found the paper severely damaged and demanded that Han compensate him 1,300 yuan based on the market price of 130 yuan per box of paper.
[1] Court Opinion
The court ruled that a gratuitous deposit contract was formed under Article 890 of the Civil Code, with Han as the depositary required to properly care for the items. Under Article 892, Han would be liable for intentional acts or gross negligence per Article 897.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the defendant, Han, acted with intent or gross negligence during the safekeeping process. The court held that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was a gratuitous safekeeping contract, and the defendant, Han, did not charge any fees. However, as a custodian, the defendant, Han, despite knowing that the stored item was office paper, failed to place it properly and instead left it casually at the entrance of the supermarket, and did not take necessary protective measures for the stored item when it rained, which constituted gross negligence, and therefore should bear liability for the losses of the plaintiff, Han. However, the plaintiff, Liu, as the owner of the stored item, delayed in retrieving the goods when Han reminded him to do so, and was also at fault, and should bear partial responsibility for the loss of his office paper. Ultimately, in order to encourage a spirit of mutual cooperation among community members, the court, after comprehensively considering the faults of both the plaintiff and the defendant, ruled that the defendant, Han, should compensate the plaintiff, Liu, 800 yuan.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
Article 890
A deposit contract is established upon delivery of the deposited item, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
Article 892
The depositary shall properly keep the deposited property.
The parties may agree on the place or method of storage. Except in an emergency or for the purpose of protecting the interests of the depositor, the place or method of storage shall not be changed without authorization.
Article 897
During the storage period, if the deposited property is damaged or lost due to the depositary’s failure to keep it properly, the depositary shall bear liability for compensation. However, if the depositary in a gratuitous deposit proves that he is not intentionally or grossly negligent, he shall not bear liability for compensation.
[1] The author's perspective
The most puzzling aspect of this case is whether a gratuitous deposit requires responsibility. However, according to the above legal provisions, as long as one is entrusted by another to keep an item, one shall bear the responsibility of custody, regardless of whether it is for compensation or not. The only difference is that in a gratuitous deposit contract, the depositary’s duty of care is relatively low. As long as he can prove that he is not intentionally or grossly negligent in causing the loss or damage of the deposited property, he does not need to bear compensation liability. That is to say, if the depositary Han in this case has fulfilled the ordinary person’s duty of care for the deposited property, he may be exempted from compensation liability.
