Turn on thread page Beta
    • CV Helper
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Wiki Support Team
    Quick(ish) question.

    Tried to park my car in a hotel car park where they had folding bollards in each space. When trying to park, the bollard gouged out the bottom of my car which is now pissing fluid everywhere. In short, it's a mess and is undrivable. On inspection of the bollard, it turns out it's been ripped partly from the ground, is unstable and has bolts sticking out of it.

    Complained to the hotel, who are getting back to me but they say they aren't liable for damage to cars. (Understandable if someone breaks into, or keys my car for instance) However, there are no signs up stating this, and the only reason for the damage is their failure to upkeep and service their own property correctly and the fact that a piece of 'equipment' they use is faulty.

    Do I have a leg to stand on when the manager rings back?
    Offline

    14
    well if you tripped over it you would be so i think you might. not certain though
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I can tell you that the hotel is liable since they have caused the damage. It's not like you've driven into a wall. They can not put up a sign disclaming their own liability if the damage is caused by them or their agents. This is a fact, not my opinion.

    Marcus
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    And there is case law. I win, game, set and match.

    http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/di...entPK=20714474

    Marcus
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    exclusion clauses must be sated, if there were no signs, then yes they are liable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    exclusion clauses must be sated, if there were no signs, then yes they are liable.
    Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner.

    Marcus
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Agree in the main with Marcus. They cannot simply disclaim liability generally and indeed if there are no signs up or such, then they obviously haven't even attempted to do this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner.

    Marcus
    It depends. There is nothing preventing a disclaimer of such liability, it's merely a matter of fairness, equality of arms and drawing adequate attention to such things before the service in question is used.

    But yeah, still, the OP should tear this hotel a new back passage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    could you argue fundamental breach if a car park isn't suitable for cars? because I think you could

    Marcus you can exclude liability for damage to property however caused, even through negligence as long as the other party if aware of this, I believe the only thing you cannot exclude liability for is death or personal injury through negligence (UCTA 2.2)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner.
    Marcus you can exclude liability for damage to property however caused, even through negligence as long as the other party if aware of this, I believe the only thing you cannot exclude liability for is death or personal injury through negligence
    Marcus is wrong. The_Goose is not quite right. Exclusion clauses are only invalid relating to property damage if the exclusion is 'reasonable', this is the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
    However, in this case, any such exclusion is almost certainly going to be unreasonable.

    It would also need to be a sign that was posted before entering the car-park or shortly after entering it, not hidden behind a pillar somewhere.

    could you argue fundamental breach if a car park isn't suitable for cars? because I think you could
    This would be assuming a contract, I don't see a contract here so you would need to sue in tort.


    In short: you absolutely can claim for the full cost of repairs, and for any extra costs incurred (e.g. a hire car, unable to make a meeting etc.). I cannot possibly think of a case which would be anymore clear. If the manager refers to a sign, just say you can't exclude liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the manager won't have a clue what you are talking about and will either go away to think about it or he will just agree to pay you on realising that he is liable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Marcus is wrong. The_Goose is not quite right. Exclusion clauses are only invalid relating to property damage if the exclusion is 'reasonable', this is the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
    However, in this case, any such exclusion is almost certainly going to be unreasonable.

    It would also need to be a sign that was posted before entering the car-park or shortly after entering it, not hidden behind a pillar somewhere.


    This would be assuming a contract, I don't see a contract here so you would need to sue in tort.


    In short: you absolutely can claim for the full cost of repairs, and for any extra costs incurred (e.g. a hire car, unable to make a meeting etc.). I cannot possibly think of a case which would be anymore clear. If the manager refers to a sign, just say you can't exclude liability under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the manager won't have a clue what you are talking about and will either go away to think about it or he will just agree to pay you on realising that he is liable.
    Er, what did I say that was wrong?

    Marcus
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Originally Posted by marcusfox
    Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner.

    Marcus

    you can exclude property damage if it's reasonable. its not as clear cut as you make it seem
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    im thinking thornton shoe lane parking here but didn't denning say something along the lines of that a n exclusion clause must have a big red arrow pointing towards it and be glaringlyobvious
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner.

    Marcus
    (Original post by The_Goose)
    you can exclude property damage if it's reasonable. its not as clear cut as you make it seem
    You can't put up a sign saying "We exclude any and all damage, howsoever caused" if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of the car park owner or their employees and agents. If it was some random scrote keying a car sure, but not in the circumstances I described.

    Marcus
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm probably a noob in your eyes since I'm only doing AS level (), but surely it'd be straightforward to prove using the Caparo test/Wagon Mound.

    In short, they owed BlackHawk a duty of care (foreseeable, proximity, fair/reasonable to impose duty of care), there's causation (since "but for" their omission in failing to fix the bollard the car would've been fine), and the damage was reasonably foreseeable (Wagon Mound).

    I agree with Jacketpotato, she could claim for repairs/other expenses (not pain/suffering though), and maybe a few exemplary damages if they thought the manager was being unnecessarily unpleasant.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Er, what did I say that was wrong?

    Marcus
    This: "I can tell you that the hotel is liable since they have caused the damage. It's not like you've driven into a wall. They can not put up a sign disclaming their own liability if the damage is caused by them or their agents. This is a fact, not my opinion."

    and this: "Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner."

    You can exclude liability for damage to property, but only if it is reasonable. It usually isn't reasonable, and certainly isn't in this case though, so it is a bit of an academic point I admit.

    im thinking thornton shoe lane parking here but didn't denning say something along the lines of that a n exclusion clause must have a big red arrow pointing towards it and be glaringlyobvious
    He did. But Thornton was a contract case: this would probably be a tort case, as I can't see any contract here. Similar principles would apply here, however.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You can't put up a sign saying "We exclude any and all damage, howsoever caused" if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner or their employees and agents. If it was some random scrote keying a car sure, but not in the circumstances I described.

    Marcus
    hmm i thought you could as long as it passed the test of reasonableness. - what statute/ source of law is this from.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    ah yes I am thinking contract. - some hotel charge for their car park, or arguably the car park may be a divisible element of the contract with the hotel itself.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This: "I can tell you that the hotel is liable since they have caused the damage. It's not like you've driven into a wall. They can not put up a sign disclaming their own liability if the damage is caused by them or their agents. This is a fact, not my opinion."

    and this: "Signs or not, it doesn't matter if the damage is caused by, or is as a result of the negligence of, the car park owner."

    You can exclude liability for damage to property, but only if it is reasonable. It usually isn't reasonable, and certainly isn't in this case though, so it is a bit of an academic point I admit.


    He did. But Thornton was a contract case: this would probably be a tort case, as I can't see any contract here. Similar principles would apply here, however.
    You cannot exclude your own liability for damage to property caused by yourself!

    Marcus
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You cannot exclude your own liability for damage to property caused by yourself!

    Marcus
    yes you can
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.