Damage and theft - car park owner responsibility

quarryman

There seems to be two opinions on this.

Your car is damaged or broken into in a shopping centre or pub car park. How liable (if at all) is the owner? You'll regularly see signs in car parks saying "xxxxx is not responsible for damage or theft. Your car is parked at owner's risk".

Unfortunately my car was broken into for the 2nd time in the same car park under a CCTV camera (that wasn't working). There's plenty of signs displayed saying not to leave valuables in your car etc etc. There was nothing visible but they took the car radio. I can't be expected to remove my radio every time i want to park there.

Its not a bad area, a 5-aside car park and the value of the theft was minimal so this purely the principal: Are the owner's of the car park responsible for ensuring the car is secure?

Please no trolls, I just want genuine feedback on information or experience people might have.

thanks.

seamus

I don't think so. Much like a landlord is not liable if a tenant's belongings are robbed. Security of your belongings is always your responsibility. There could obviously be mitigating circumstances - such as if a car park attendant parked your car and forgot to lock it, or the car park owner insisted that you leave your vehicle unlocked.

Funnily enough, if you returned to your vehicle and cut yourself on the broken glass of your window, you may have a case against the owner :rolleyes:

Baz_

I always thought this practice of renouncing liability was a bit suspicious, but I have never checked it out. Where I think its most annoying is in car parks that you have to pay in i.e. "You may pay to park here, but we will not ensure the protection of your property, even though you have paid us to leave it here".

I would love to know if the signs are legal, they're certainly detestable.

quarryman

Yeah, compensation seems to occur in injury cases. Which is interesting. Since its a 5-aside setup, makes you wonder would they pay out in an injury case. Don't plan on testing it.

I would have thought that the owner is responsible for the security of the patrons on his property. Like i said, I have no knowledge of this, I'd just be interested to know where I (or anyone) stands.

Since my car has now been robbed twice I'm reluctant to even drive up there any more as it will be targetted, the door is still broken. I want to play football but the owner won't guarantee that my car will be safe. He doesn't care either way since someone else will pay him to use the pitch if I don't.

Borzoi

quarryman wrote:

There seems to be two opinions on this.

Your car is damaged or broken into in a shopping centre or pub car park. How liable (if at all) is the owner? You'll regularly see signs in car parks saying "xxxxx is not responsible for damage or theft. Your car is parked at owner's risk".
.

My understanding is that with the signs up - they are clearly marking the extent of their responsibility - ie none.

Without the signs, you might be in a position to claim, as then the Car Park owner is leaving his position in doubt. But I wouldn't bet on getting money back.

In your case quarryman, you're a bit screwed unfortunately. Thieving swine are everywhere :mad:

thatkindofgirl

Fascinating. So I could open a car park, charge people to park there, and make 0 provisions for safety or security... in fact, I could probably be robbing the cars myself and making a tidy sum on the side in hubcaps, radios and wing mirrors. LOL

The problem (again) is lack of options. If we had more options, we wouldn't park in dodgey carparks with no security, and they would have to install security or go bust.

Blitzkrieger

I'd love to see the legality of that tested. If I went around carrying a sign saying "I accept no responsibility for punching you in the face"...........

I just wouldn't park my car somewhere it wouldn't be safe and everybody I know wouldn't either. If it's not safe I'll just go somewhere else. I think secure car parking is a must for any business these days - I don't think they'd survive long without it. There must be other soccer pitches. If the owner's attitude is that bad let him go **** himself.

Funxy

I agree with what everyones saying but im going to play devils advocate here for a second just to but the other side out there. All public car parks in dublin etc aren't properly 'secure' like say a hotel car park 'should' be(they arent either). In fact im sure youd struggle to find any carpark anywhere to accept responsibility for a window being broken to rob a radio? Im not sure on this one but im always wary leaving my car into multistorys and hotels in dublin.

Anyway it is awful that parking dosnt offer this however if you owned one of these car parks would you fork out the extra on security etc. I mean imagine a car park holding 1000 cars all on different levels. How many extra security gaurds would you need to make sure nothing wrong is done? A hell of alot. Why would any car park offer this when it would rise costs to an unreal level and no other car park does this. Its just like any business unfortunatly and its there to make a profit. I always go to the car parks with employees walking around and with cctv, im afraid thats the best youll get around ireland. If your really paranoid you may wanna Travel to the uk though

Funxy

I forgot to add also, if you do love your car that much to be worried about it, best thing is to get a top of the range alarm. Also immobiliser, steering lock, tracker. Loads of stuff to deter thiefs. Then once the alarm goes off im sure the thief wont be staying around to get the looks from other car users and employees who hear it. I personally would never leave a car anywhere without an alarm. And i always remove the stereo facia, so theres never anything at all valuable in my car

scargill

quarryman wrote:

Its not a bad area, a 5-aside car park....

where abouts is this quarryman ? I'm wondering if its the same one I go to...

DubTony

I'm in the process of buying a grocery store, complete with parking spaces on the shop's property. Needless to say I will erect a sign stating that I'm not responsible for damage. Why? Cost. I can't afford to pay for a new window / lock and anything that may be stolen.

There is currently space for 5 cars outside the shop. By turning the spaces 90 degrees, fixing up the ground and drawing some lines I can increase that to 10. I'll be providing free parking for my customers off the main road, and hopefully ensuring that I can generate extra business.

But there's no way I'll be responsible for anything happening to any car on my property. Businesses providing free parking shouldn't be responsible for damage. In fact they are actually being quite community minded while trying to drum up extra business, as they are eliminating or cutting down on-street parking.

In a big car park working CCTV is a must.

Just had a thought. I might even introduce clamping for those who stay there when they aren't in the shop. :eek:

Boggle

I was told once (might have been a lecturer in college but can't be sure) that these signs are (I think.. like I said it was quite a long time ago) worthless in terms of liability limitation, but they serve very well to dissuade possiible lawsuits.
Put it this way, could a club put up a sign saying they are not responsible for your safety or damage done to you while on the premises?? What about a building site? They are responsible for any injury that occurs on the premises regardless of what signs they put up...

If you really want to claim, consult a solicitor, but don't forget that this would result in withdrawal of parking facilities or closing of the pitch.

Boggle

Just had a thought. I might even introduce clamping for those who stay there when they aren't in the shop.

Piece of advice... DON'T SELL HACKSAW BLADES!!!

Alun

I think it depends on how the damage is caused.

If it's causedby a third party, i.e. a scumbag who goes into the car park and breaks into your car, then arguably there's not a huge amount they could do to stop that. OK, they could install CCTV and have a guard patrol the car park, but that would be no guarantee, and I can imagine any carpark owner not accepting responsibility for that kind of damage.

But, if it's caused by deminstrable negligence on behalf of the operator, say something falls off the roof and lands on your car, or a barrier comes down on your car as you're driving out, then no number of "We do not accept liability " signs can absolve the owner of that legal liabaility. The same goes for those signs on automatic car washes if you can demonstrate that the thing was faulty or incorrectly maintained.

bp_me

I think all these disclaimers work right up to the point where something occurs that is actually the owners fault. The they arent worth the paper they are written on (metal the are printed on in this case)

DubTony

But the thing is, how often does something happen that is actually within the control of the car park owner. Fair enough if a slate falls off a roof or suchlike, then there is a very definite liability on the part of the owner. But as Alun says, if some scumbag keys your car, you can hardly blame the guy who provided the space, especially if it's provided free of charge.

stratos

Afaik and I was taught this a while ago in college .
Under the laws of tort in this country disclaimer signs are illegal.
The owner assumes all liability for you on his premises.
I do know however new laws were passed in 1995 so this may not be true anymore.

Victor

Baz_ wrote:

I always thought this practice of renouncing liability was a bit suspicious, but I have never checked it out. Where I think its most annoying is in car parks that you have to pay in i.e. "You may pay to park here, but we will not ensure the protection of your property, even though you have paid us to leave it here". I would love to know if the signs are legal, they're certainly detestable.

A punter lost in a case against Aer Rianta, so I can't see you winning.

stratos wrote:

Afaik and I was taught this a while ago in college .
Under the laws of tort in this country disclaimer signs are illegal.
The owner assumes all liability for you on his premises.
I do know however new laws were passed in 1995 so this may not be true anymore.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY ACT, 1995 http://193.178.1.79/ZZA10Y1995.html

Blitzkrieger wrote:

I'd love to see the legality of that tested. If I went around carrying a sign saying "I accept no responsibility for punching you in the face"...........

There is of course a fundamental difference between the owner doing something (the owner breaking into your car) and not preventing any possible occurance (some gurrier breaking into your car)