Is it possible to ask for a compensation when losing vehicle at a restaurant or places selling food?

This article discusses two cases: when the restaurant has a parking attendant and has a parking card; and when the restaurant does not have a parking attendant.

1. When the restaurant has a valet

For restaurants that have conditions to arrange a valet or have parking cards delivered to customers, in this case, there is a contractual relationship between the restaurant and the customer to keep the property.

Article 554 of Vietnam's Civil Code 2015 provides for a contract for property custody:

"Contract for bailment of property means an agreement between parties whereby a bailee accepts the property of a bailor for safekeeping, for return to the bailor upon expiry of the duration of the contract, and the bailor must pay a fee to the bailee, except where the bailment is free of charge."

Moreover, according to the provisions of Clause 1, Article 119 of the Civil Code 2015, A civil transaction shall be expressed verbally, in writing, or through specific acts.

Based on the above provisions, parking tickets are a form of parking contract. Or more broadly, in the case that the restaurant has a valet but does not have a parking ticket, in this case, there still exists a civil legal relationship between the parties, which is shown through the specific actions of the person looking after the vehicle such as guiding passengers to the parking, parking the vehicles for customers.

According to the provisions of Clause 1, Article 557 of the Civil Code, the obligation of bailees of property is take care of the property as agreed and return it to the bailor in the same condition in which the bailee received it.

The bailer has the right to claim compensation for damage if the bailee loses or damages the bailer's property, except for force majeure reason.

Thus, when going to stores and restaurant which has valet(s), if the vehicle is lost, the customer can ask the store for compensation. The initial compensation will be agreed upon by the two parties based on the actual value of the lost property. If an agreement cannot be reach, the court may be request for a settlement.

2. When the restaurant does not have a valet

Currently, many resraurant still does not have a valet or a guide to the parking slot guests. These places are mainly street food stalls. Customers going out to eat often park their vehicle on the sidewalk near the stall and take care of their vehicles. In this case, there is no contractual relationship between the customer and the restaurant.

Because there is no obligation to look after the vehicle for the customer, if the customer loses the vehicle, the restaurant owner is not responsible for compensating for the damage.

A specific situation in the Judgment No. 06/2018/DS-PT on n the Dispute over the bailment of the property contract as follows:

When he arrived at the cafe, Mr. D handed the vehicle over to the security guard of the shop to take care of it. Because this shop didn't have a ticket to deliver to the customer, Mr. D locked his vehicle. But the security guard of the shop suggested that Mr. D not to do that, so he could park the vehicle neatly. After that at 14:20 when Mr. D left, he discovered that the vehicle was missing. At that time, the security guard was not there. He reported the loss of his vehicle to Mr. Q, the owner of the shop. Now Mr. D asks Mr. Bui Manh Q to compensate for the amount of VND 30,000,000 according to the appraisal certificate.

The People's Court of Dong Nai province said: Mr. Q appealed that there was no basis to determine that Mr. D parked his vehicle at the QH cafe owned by him to drink coffee because, after reporting the loss of his car, Mr. If he was able to issue the vehicle papers, he was not responsible for compensating Mr. D for the value of the car. However, through Mr. Q's testimony shown in the minutes of working with the ward police, there is a basis to determine that Mr. D had parked the vehicle. Therefore, Mr. Q must be responsible for compensating for lost property in accordance with the law.

Therefore, the court decided to accept a part of the plaintiff's lawsuit claim by Mr. Ho Hoang D. Mr. Bui Manh Q is forced to pay Mr. Ho Hoang D the amount of 20,000,000 VND.

Please Login to be able to download