Customer safety does not belong to parking

sakil634

The rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice decided that it is not possible to hold a parking company responsible for an armed robbery suffered in its yard by a customer who had belongings stolen, but preserved the vehicle. When going to a bank branch to withdraw R$,, the customer used parking which, according to him, was intended for bank users. When he returned, already in the parking lot, he was robbed. His sunglasses, wristwatch and money were taken. Even maintaining that the parking was offered by the bank branch, the client filed a lawsuit assigning responsibility for the loss suffered exclusively to the parking administrator.

The agreement between the establishments, raised by the user since the appeal, was not recognized by the court of second instance, a situation that prevents the analysis of the fact by the STJ, as Phone Number List Precedent of the court does not allow the re-examination of evidence in the special appeal trial. Furthermore, the ruling of the Court of Justice of São Paulo maintained the position of the first instance, declaring that it was a private parking lot, independent and unrelated to the bank branch. It also confirmed the thesis that there was no defect in the provision of the service, as the company's obligation was restricted to the custody of vehicles.



The client appealed to the STJ alleging violation of articles of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and , sole paragraph, of the Civil Code, as well as jurisprudential divergence. However, the rd Panel did not observe the aforementioned violations. As no link was recognized between the companies, which rules out joint and several liability, “the parking lot is only responsible for guarding the vehicle, and it is unreasonable to impose on it the duty to guarantee the safety of the user, especially when the user carries out an operation known to be risky, consistent with withdrawing funds from bank branches”, declared Andrighi.