[1] Compiled from: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court Golden Balance
 
Case review
[2] Dong parked his vehicle in a paid parking lot and paid the parking fee. During the parking period, the front right part of the vehicle was scratched and collided. After Dong reported to the police, the traffic police brigade checked the surveillance footage and found that the surveillance in the relevant area was malfunctioning, making it impossible to identify the perpetrator. Dong believed that the security company managing the parking lot failed to fulfill its safety guarantee obligation by not maintaining and inspecting the surveillance, leading to the inability to find the actual perpetrator. Therefore, he sued the security company in court, requesting compensation for vehicle repair costs and other expenses. The security company argued that the existing evidence could not prove that Dong's vehicle was damaged in the parking lot, and since the damage was caused by a third party, the security company should only bear supplementary liability.

[1] Image source from the internet; if infringement occurs, please delete!

[3] After trial, the court held that the security company, as the operator and manager of the parking lot, had the obligation to ensure the safety of vehicles parked there. Dong provided photos of the vehicle entering the parking lot and photos of the vehicle after damage. The court, considering his immediate report to the police and request to check surveillance, determined that the vehicle was damaged during its stay in the parking lot. Although the damage was caused by a third party, there was no evidence that the security company's staff conducted necessary patrols or guided the vehicle during parking or departure. The staff also failed to promptly discover the damage to Dong's vehicle and could not provide effective clues to identify the offending vehicle after the incident. Under these circumstances, the security company should bear full compensation liability. The court ruled that the security company pay Dong for vehicle repair costs and other expenses.
 
 
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[4] Article 1198
[5] Operators, managers of business premises such as hotels, shopping malls, banks, stations, airports, sports venues, entertainment venues, or organizers of mass activities, who fail to fulfill their safety guarantee obligations, causing harm to others, shall bear tort liability.
If harm is caused to another person by the act of a third party, the third party shall bear tort liability; if the business operator, manager, or organizer fails to fulfill the duty of security, they shall bear corresponding supplementary liability. After bearing supplementary liability, the business operator, manager, or organizer may seek recourse from the third party.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[6] The key point in this case is the "safety guarantee obligation" we have repeatedly mentioned. Here, the safety guarantee obligation mainly refers to the following aspects:
[1] Whether necessary reminders and security measures have been taken (such as ensuring cameras are functioning properly, patrolling on time, guiding vehicle parking, etc.);
[2] Whether the parking lot provided maximum assistance when damage occurred; and whether the parking lot's facilities met safety standards.
 
[3] Thus, in this case, as a paid public place, since Dong paid the corresponding fee, the parking lot should fulfill its responsibilities. Dong proved that his vehicle was damaged only after entering the parking lot, but the parking lot could not prove who caused the damage due to camera malfunction. Therefore, the parking lot failed to meet its responsibility of ensuring facilities met standards and should bear compensation liability for Dong's losses. It is worth noting that if the parking lot can identify the specific tortfeasor, it may seek recourse from that person.