Li Xingying v. Shanghai Darunfa Supermarket
(Dispute over Damages due to Bag Keeping)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Li Xingying, female, 66, a retiree, presently employed by Shanghai Aviation Travel Agency, and dwelling at Shuangyang Road, Shanghai City.@#
Authorized Agent: Zhang Guizhuang, lawyer of Shanghai Liting Law Firm.@#
Defendant: Shanghai Darunfa Company Limited, Yangpu Store, located at Huangxing Road, Shanghai City.@#
Person-in-charge: Luo Jianzhong.@#
Defendant: Shanghai Darunfa Company Limited, located at Gonghexin Road, Shanghai City.@#
Legal Representative: Xu Renyu, board chairman.@#
Authorized agent of the two defendants: Zhou Zhiming, lawyer of Shanghai Shenda Law Firm.@#
Li Xingying, the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit with the People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai Municipality against Shanghai Darunfa Company Limited, Yangpu Store (hereinafter referred to as Darunfa Supermarket) and Shanghai Darunfa Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Darunfa Company) due to a dispute over indemnity for property damage arising out bag keeping in the supermarket. The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court) considered that the case had major influences within its jurisdiction, and decided according to Articles 19 and 39 of the “Civil Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China” to bring the case into its own jurisdiction for trial.@#
Li Xingying alleged: When I did shopping in Darunfa Supermarket, I went up to No. 22 self-service deposit cabinet to put my bag in a box, and put a coin of CNY 1 into the machine pursuant to the instructions. When the coin came out of the return slot, a password slip printed with the numeral 1250719748 was sent out above the insert slot, and the door of a box near my chest was opened automatically. I put a black leather bag (in which there were CNY 4,660 I obtained for a tourist group and CNY 650 of my own) and an umbrella into the box, and then I went shopping. After finishing the shopping and coming out, I input the password pursuant to the instructions on the password list, but could not open the door of the box, so I turned to an employee of Darunfa Supermarket for help. After requiring me to write down the names of the articles and the amount of money put in the box, the employee opened the door of the mentioned box with a key, but found the box empty. In the evening, I called the police and left my narration on the written records. After that, I negotiated with Darunfa Supermarket and Darunfa Company on this matter, but reached no consensus. Li Xingying held that, since the supermarket required consumers to put their own properties into the self-service deposit cabinets placed in the supermarket, both parties formed a contractual relationship of custody, and the supermarket shall bear the custodian liabilities for the properties entrusted by consumers for custody. As Darunfa Supermarket was too credulous of the safety and reliability of the self-service deposit cabinets it provided, and was negligent in management, the money and properties put by Li Xingying in the cabinet were missing. Li Xingying pleaded the court to order the two defendants to indemnify her for CNY 5,310 of economic losses, and to bear the litigation costs, as well.@#
．．．．．． | | 李杏英诉上海大润发超市存包损害赔偿案@#
@#
原告：李杏英，女，66岁，退休职工，现就聘于上海航空旅行社工作，住上海市双阳路。@#
委托代理人：张桂庄，上海市鲤庭律师事务所律师。@#
被告：上海大润发有限公司杨浦店。地址：上海市黄兴路。@#
负责人：骆建中。@#
被告：上海大润发有限公司。住所地：上海市共和新路。@#
法定代表人：徐仁羽，董事长。@#
二被告委托代理人：周知明，上海市申达律师事务所律师。@#
原告李杏英因超市存包与被告上海大润发有限公司杨浦店(以下简称大润发超市)、上海大润发有限公司(以下简称大润发公司)发生财产损害赔偿纠纷，向上海市杨浦区人民法院提起诉讼。上海市第二中级人民法院认为此案在本辖区内有重大影响，遂依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第十九条、第三十九条
原告李杏英诉称：原告去被告大润发超市购物时，到该店设置的22号自助寄存柜处存包，按提示投入1元硬币。当该硬币又从退币口出来的时候，投币口上方吐出一张印有1250719748数字的密码条，并见近原告胸口处有一箱门自动打开。原告遂将随身携带的黑色皮包一只(内有刚领取的旅游团款4660元和私款650元)、雨伞一把寄存在该箱内，然后进去购物。购物出来后，原告按密码条的提示输入密码，却打不开箱门，便找大润发超市的工作人员。在被要求写下箱内寄存物品的名称及钱款数额后，工作人员用钥匙打开原告指认存物的箱门，发现箱内是空的。当晚，原告即报警并留下笔录。事后原告就此事与大润发超市和大润发公司交涉，未果。原告认为，超市要求消费者将自己的财物存入超市设置的自助寄存柜内，双方形成的是保管合同关系，超市应当对保存的消费者财物承担保管责任。由于大润发超市对自己给消费者提供的自助寄存柜的安全、可靠性过于轻信，疏于管理，以致原告存入柜内的钱物遗失。请求判令二被告给原告赔偿经济损失5310元；诉讼费由二被告负担。@#
被告大润发超市、大润发公司辩称：原告当天在大润发超市购物是事实，但购物与存包没有必然联系，并非所有的消费者都需要存包。原告提供的密码条，只能说明存包箱曾被原告打开过，但不能证明原告确实在里面存放过物品，更不能证明存放的物品是包、伞和巨款。另外，原告使用的自助寄存柜，是大润发超市无偿提供给消费者使用，以便消费者存放零星物品的，双方就此形成的是无偿借用关系。大润发超市已经将自助寄存柜的使用方法和注意事项以明示的方法告知给消费者。对于消费者携带的大件物品、贵重钱物，大润发超市还设有人工寄存处。现在自助寄存柜本身没有损坏，故大润发超市和大润发公司对原告所称的物品遗失没有过错，无需承担民事赔偿责任，原告的诉讼请求应当驳回。@#
经庭前证据交换和开庭审理，上海市第二中级人民法院确认了下列双方当事人均无异议的事实：@#
被告大润发超市是被告大润发公司隶属的企业。@#
2000年11月1日下午，原告李杏英在被告大润发超市处购物，并使用该店设置的自助寄存柜。下午5时30分左右李杏英购物结束后，持该店自助寄存柜号码为1250719748的密码条找到大润发超市的工作人员，称其购物前曾将皮包一只(内装从原告聘用单位上海航空旅行社刚领取的旅游团款4660元及个人钱款650元，计5310元)、雨伞一把存入该店22号自助寄存柜的寄存箱内，现因无法打开箱子，要求解决。大润发超市工作人员将李杏英指认的箱门打开后，发现里面是空的。工作人员告知李杏英，其指认的箱门与其所持密码条显示的箱门号码不一致。但是，当工作人员将与密码条号码相符的另一箱门打开后，发现里面也是空的。当晚，李杏英向上海市公安局杨浦分局五角场镇警署报案。@#
审理过程中双方当事人形成的争议焦点是：@#
焦点一：皮包、包内物品和雨伞是否放入自助寄存柜内。@#
原告李杏英认为，2000年11月1日下午3：00左右，其在受聘单位上海航空旅行社领取了旅游团款4660元后，就乘车于下午4：00左右到被告大润发超市，时间是连续的，中途没有辗转，故应确认其已将上述钱款和物品放入超市的自助寄存柜内。@#
原告李杏英为此提交的证据是：@#
证据1、大润发超市号码为1250719748的自助寄存柜密码条，以证明李杏英当时确在大润发超市寄包；@#
证据2、上海市公安局杨浦分局五角场镇警署2000年11月1日的询问笔录，以证明李杏英确向警署报案，并证明李杏英与大润发超市的交涉经过。@#
证据3、大润发超市的两份送货单，以证明李杏英当时确在大润发超市购物。@#
证据4、上海航空旅行社的暂支单和上海航空旅行社于2002年8月30日出具的证明，以及证人上海航空旅行社出纳俞红的证词，以证明李杏英作为上海航空旅行社的业务员，确曾于2000年11月1日下午3：00左右，在本市中山南路617号615室上海航空旅行社原南市营业部出纳处，领取了旅游团款4660元。@#
．．．．．． |