I see signs like this in parking lots. Can the owners of the parking lot/building REALLY not be responsible just because they SAY they’re not responsible? Is someone MORE responsible because they didn’t put up a sign?
It seems to me that the liability/culpability would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis and can’t be covered by a blanket statement. And I guess these cases keep busy the lawyers who advertise on the back covers of phone books.
I don’t think they hold much water.
In the same way as retailers putting up “You break it, you bought it” signs.
Its probably to cover outright fraud issues out of the gate: “I left my car unlocked and a diamond tiara on the front seat and it was stolen - but it happened in your car lot so you must pay for it!”. After that it would depend on the circumstances - if they showed negligence (letting a gangs of teens roam the parking garage freely) that sign might not hold water.
If the parking lot somehow causes the damage or loss, they can be held liable. JMO
I have a business and I have liability insurance, I imagine most businesses have to carry some.
Based on my years of experience watching Judge Wapner and listening to Bruce Williams:
The law determines whether or not they are responsible for damage. The presence or absence of a sign doesn’t change that, although it’s possible some jurisdictions might require a warning that you are parking at your own risk. If you’re paying to park the lot owner’s responsibility is likely to be higher than if it’s free.
I remember Wapner explaining many times about needing to determine whether a situation required slight care, ordinary care, or great care, depending on the type of bailment involved.
Not just fraud—let’s say you come out of the grocery store to find that someone has dented your car, or reached in through the open window and grabbed the iPad you had left in the passenger seat. Why should the store have to pay for it just because it happened in their parking lot?
This makes sense.
I parked a car in an airport parking lot. While I was gone, a tornado came through. Parking lot was not responsible for the damage as it was part of an “Act of God” clause. This was in Texas in 1975.
Every time I see “Not responsible for theft or damage” signs, I Insert the words, “You are” in front of it (mentally).
I think in most cases, it’s like gun laws. You can’t sue the manufacturer if you get shot by a crazy Doper, you have to sue the Doper.
Another example: if you slip and fall in a store, it’s the store’s fault for not putting up warning signs and keeping the floor un-slippery. However, if another customer picks you up and body slams you, the store is not at fault, but that person. If the person is a store employee, then the store shares some responsibility.
I always remember the Seinfield quote about those signs: “So, you put up a sign so you can do whatever you want? You’re not a part of society?”
The idea that a business can evade all liability simply by posting a sign is absurd.
I’ve always assumed such signs were informational. I.e. they put up the sign because they’re not responsible for theft or damage—not that they’re not responsible because they put up a sign.
Why should a business be liable for that sort of thing?
If, while my friend is parked in my driveway, someone steals something from his car, should I be liable for that?
I used to work on a parking lot. If a thief come onto the lot and reached into a car to steal something I may or may not have bothered to yell at him. Depending on whether he looked dangerous to me. I might call the police if I didn’t want to get involved. But, I wasn’t there to act as a security guard for the few bucks people paid to park.
On the other hand, the police would sometimes stop by to ask if they could seach the lot for expired stickers. The answer from me and my company was a solid NO.
No, but if your tree falls on his car your homeowner’s insurance might have to pay for it.
Nope. Those guys pay big bucks for those ads, and they don’t do piddly ante crap like dented fenders in parking lots. They’re looking for cases with bodily injury, clear liability, and an insured defendant.
I think this is called an exculpatory clause (or at least it is in a contract). Their use depends on the context. With things like human research (medical, behavioral, etc) they’re just plain null and void. If you’re on an experimental drug, for instance, they can’t legally excuse themselves of liability.
For things like “we’re not responsible for theft” it probably depends from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some it may be a given and they just post it to keep people from complaining at them when it happens, in others it may require an explicit declaration to waive their liability. I’m not sure how it works on other things like software (the “totally not our fault if installing this borks your computer” sort of stuff you see in EULAs).
No, but usually these signs seem to mostly be about damage from shopping carts.
And I think it’s a good question: if grocery stores have shopping carts that they allow customers to use to roll their groceries out to the car, they’re creating an environment where loose shopping carts might roll into someone’s car with enough force to dent it. (Maybe Kansas has nothing but perfectly flat parking lots, but around where I live, some are and some aren’t.) Can the store legally absolve itself of its role in the damage merely by putting up a sign? Or does the law already exempt them from this sort of damage, and they’re just reminding the customers of this?
Enquiring minds want to know.
The car wash I go to has a sign like this, “Not Responsible for Mirror or antenna damage”. Every time I see it, I think “Um yeah you are. If you screw up and break a mirror, you sure are responsible.”