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)

Busy with work, Liu failed to pick up the paper for two days. On the third day, a sudden rainstorm hit; Han, preoccupied with his own goods, forgot to move the paper indoors, leaving it soaked and unusable. Liu demanded 1,300 yuan in compensation at 130 yuan per box.
 
 
[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 key issue was whether Han acted with gross negligence. The court found Han grossly negligent for failing to properly store the paper and protect it from rain, despite knowing its nature, and ordered compensation. However, Liu’s delay in retrieval also contributed, so the court, promoting community cooperation, ordered Han to pay 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.