Disclaimers/liability question

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

McCrack

Liability can be denied on anything, leaving aside personal injury which isnt as simple as putting up a sign, material damage (loss/damage to a persons car/property) can absolve the 'occupier' (gym/cap park). Essentially it's deemed a part of the contract entered into with the occupier when a person parks their car, provided the notice is brought to their attention BEFORE the car is parked (or reasonable efforts have been made to do so)

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Kimono-Girl

I'm Studying Law at the moment and it would be worth your while doing some reading on this we have looked at cases where liability was awarded against these places despite the sign being up. hope it helps

Our man in Havana

I can't see how a simple sign can absolve someone of liability.

The tax man

Can I just ask a similar question,rather then starting a new thread on the same liability issue.

Similar signs at car washes were the garage states they are not liable for damage caused to cars. Could they be liable for damage caused by an object left in the car wash that should never have been there. Would this fall outside the "normal" liability clause they may have?

Thanks.

Our man in Havana

I would think so.

Their standard signs can't protect them from claims. At best they might disuade the most stupid of people from claiming.

My favourite signs are the ones that farmers stick on their gates disclaiming liability if you come onto their farms. Nice try lads.

Rhonda9000

The tax man wrote: »

Can I just ask a similar question,rather then starting a new thread on the same liability issue.

Similar signs at car washes were the garage states they are not liable for damage caused to cars. Could they be liable for damage caused by an object left in the car wash that should never have been there. Would this fall outside the "normal" liability clause they may have?

Thanks.

You would attack this on negligence grounds. The disclaimer would form part of the car washing machine owners' defence.

Rhonda9000

Bond-007 wrote: »

My favourite signs are the ones that farmers stick on their gates disclaiming liability if you come onto their farms. Nice try lads.

It's probably no harm to point out that the people entering the land are trespassers and while it cannot disclaim all liabilty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995, under s.4 liability is only affixed where the farmer has intentionally injured the trespasser/recreational user or damaged their property, or acted with reckless disregard for the trespasser or their property.

So - trespasser is only afforded skeleton protection under the Act. On a related point, I recall a decision -whos name escapes me- overturning a HC action where the trespasser had been successful against farmer. Supreme Court held for the farmer deciding that his warning sign as to the unstable nature of the ground where the trespasser injured themselves was sufficient to disclaim liability.

keithogixer

The Scientist wrote: »

How do disclaimers work?

Take for instance at your local Gym/ or a multi storey car park, you see a sign that says something like:

"Management does not accept responsibility for loss or damage to goods/vehicles left/parked in this property"

By putting up a sign, can a company just deny liability like that?

I'm a student studying Contract Law at the moment, what I've seen and heard / studied is that expressly implied/Disclaimers very rarely work. The courts don't like them because they deem it that the person using the service of parking the car is at a disadvantage. And secondly the only way a disclaimer is likely to 100% work is that the sign is put up on a wall before the member of public enters into the car park or receives a ticket, which gives the person the opportunity to drive away instead of entering.

Keitho...

Our man in Havana

I agree 100%. A court would have to be convinced that a claimant had read and understood the disclaimer and still chose to park.

Deadeyes

Thought I'd bring up this old thread rather than start a new one.

In an application form for membership of a swimming pool there is the following clause:
"The Centre and its’ employees/agents shall not be liable in any way for any injury sustained on the
premises or any damages relating thereto."

If someone signed a contract with such a clause would they be held to it by a court? Is it really a legitimate, enfoceable clause?

Edit:
After some searching I think this is covered by Unfair Terms for Consumer Contracts

Our man in Havana

I doubt such a clause would be upheld by a court.

EC1000

Deadeyes wrote: »

If someone signed a contract with such a clause would they be held to it by a court? Is it really a legitimate, enfoceable clause?

You cant contact out of protections that are afforded by statute - e.g. occupier's liability etc...