The Analysis On Vehicle Parking Dispute Of Zhang Vs. The Company And The Hospital

With the improvement of people's living standard and the sharp increasing cars, the vehicle parking dispute that caused by theft has increased sharply. However, there are no uniform regulations in ours laws, which triger big controversy about Legal Relationship, the evaluation of evidence, liability to pay compensation when the cars were stolen or damaged. The same case would be judged differently. It is bad for safeguarding the unity of the legal system and the legal authority, for protecting The interests of the owner and parking lot management. This case is a symbol of the situation above. It has three points in dispute. Firstly, whether the case between Zhang and the company constitutes the tort legal relationship that against security obligation. Secondly, whether the entry and exit certificate can be admitted as documentary evidence. Thirdly, whether the company should be liable for the torts. By analyzing the case, the conclusions can be drawed as follows: First of all, the relationship between Zhang and the company constitutes tort law relationship. To balance the rights and interests of the parties, it should be identified as the tort law relationship instead of the contract relationship that against the the principle of autonomy of will and benefit balance according to the law. What's more, as the eligibility of security obligation the company's unlawful act leads to the damage fact that Zhang's vehicle was lost, conforming to the subjective factor and objective factor of the tort law relations; Then, the entry and exit certificate should be admitted as documentary evidence, which conforms to rules of evidence——the reinforcing evidence rules and rules of discretion.Besides, though the voucher is defective in the content, Zhang fulfils his duty of explanation with requirements of form and essence, which conforms the subjective and objective components. Lastly, the company should undertake the supplementary liability in tort. There is no evidence to prove the mistake of Zhang and the hospital, so they do not need to assume the liability to pay compensation. While the thief has not fulfilled the compensatory obligations and the company has not exemptions, the company, as the second supplementary liability-holder, should undertake the supplementary liability in tort accordingly with the degree of fault, and have no right to recourse.