Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basically I'm going go-karting tomorrow and I have to sign a disclaimer which is worded as follows...

    I the applicant agree that I will take no action against [the karting company] in respect of any personal injuries, loss or damage occasioned to me as result of any negligence or breach of duty or breach of statutory duty on the part of the [karting company], its servants or agents.

    Now I don't know much about law but I'm pretty certain this wouldn't hold up in court if they were negligent and it caused someone to get hurt.

    Am I right?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It would if they were negligent.

    They can in no way get out of a statutory duty though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, I actually did about exclusion clauses in my lecture today!

    Where an exclusion clause states negligence by name then yes, it would generally be binding. So yes, I think that would stand up in court.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ah right thanks for the info. I didn't realise these sort of agreements get companies out of trouble if they make a mistake. Wonder why all companies don't make us sign them before doing anything!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, I remember when I worked at the go-karting.

    A woman split her head open and got taken to work in the boss's £40 k car 'cause he didn't want an ambulance to pull up outside as it would look bad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as amended in 2003 states "A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as amended in 2003 states "A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence."
    Thanks, I did think it sounded a bit dodgy that a company could absolve themselves from their responsibilities with such a contract.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    You are welcome. If you google the act or "unfair contract terms negligence" or equivalent you'll find more details.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You are welcome. If you google the act or "unfair contract terms negligence" or equivalent you'll find more details.
    I don't know for definite, but I think that it's if there is a fundamental breach. If somebody dies or is seriously injured due to serious negligence, then they are still liable; nobody can get out of that.

    But otherwise, they can use that disclaimer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pcok)
    I don't know for definite, but I think that it's if there is a fundamental breach. If somebody dies or is seriously injured due to serious negligence, then they are still liable; nobody can get out of that.

    But otherwise, they can use that disclaimer.
    The whole point of this thread was about wriggling out of liability for personal injury casued by negligence (serious or otherwise), and the fact is that the company may not do so, no matter what is in its contract terms.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The whole point of this thread was about wriggling out of liability for personal injury casued by negligence (serious or otherwise), and the fact is that the company may not do so, no matter what is in its contract terms.
    I'm not sure why you are "speaking" to me in that way, but what I was saying is that from my contract lecture the other day I got the impression that, say there was a personal injury due to negligence, and it wasn't serious, then the company would not be liable. Also, if the negligence wasn't serious, but the injury was, then the company would not be liable.

    I don't get why I have, apparently, offended you, but no need to be rude.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pcok)
    I'm not sure why you are "speaking" to me in that way, but what I was saying is that from my contract lecture the other day I got the impression that, say there was a personal injury due to negligence, and it wasn't serious, then the company would not be liable. Also, if the negligence wasn't serious, but the injury was, then the company would not be liable.

    I don't get why I have, apparently, offended you, but no need to be rude.
    You haven't offended me, though I am somewhat taken aback that you should post that in the face of my previous post, in which I quoted part of an act which, if you read it, you will find completely refutes what you think you have learned from your lecturer. A contract term cannot absolve a supplier from liability for negligence in respect of personal injury.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You haven't offended me, though I am somewhat taken aback that you should post that in the face of my previous post, in which I quoted part of an act which, if you read it, you will find completely refutes what you think you have learned from your lecturer. A contract term cannot absolve a supplier from liability for negligence in respect of personal injury.
    Hmm, I will speak to my lecturer then. That's confusing, and seems to go against what he said.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pcok)
    Hmm, I will speak to my lecturer then. That's confusing, and seems to go against what he said.
    As I'm sure you've learned by now, reading the actual words of the legislation is definitely better than listening to any other source.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Just to confirm, Good bloke is 110% correct. The legislation clearly says that you can't restrict your liability for ANY FORM WHATSOEVER of personal injury caused by negligence. You can only restrict your liability for negligence where it is reasonable to do.
    The courts can't go against what the legislation says; there is no way that your lecturer would have told you that you can exclude liability in negligence for minor injuries, maybe you got it confused with the property damage provision.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The UCTA prevents a 'business' from excluding liability for negligence (PI and death) against a 'consumer'.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    ^^ Applies to everybody, not just businesses
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    ^^ Applies to everybody, not just businesses
    Haha, sorry, was thinking of the UCTA in terms of the SoGA.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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