Parking at own Risk.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

Perhaps some perspective -

The issue of a waiver claiming cant be liable is an unfair term and not allowed, as per my first post. However, that does not mean that if anything happens that it is the car parks fault.
Fault stems from either intent or negligience. If the boom gate is not working and the company does not try and make an arrangement, and your car is stolen, you would be well placed for a claim. (But, if the boom is broken for 3 days and you still park, then some of the liability passes onto you)
if the employee is involved, then the company may be vicarously liable.

if I was a car park owner, i would not advertise as a secure parking, because that would place a greater burden on me, because then security becomes part of the service.
There may also be some confusion with the CPA and fault- section 61 dealing with harm and liability essentially makes the supply chain liable the moment there is harm. This type of immediate liability does not flow through to the rest of the act. (Important: Section 61 deals with goods and not services, unless the service includes supply of goods. Example, while performing heart surgery(a service) i insert a pacemaker(goods) If teh pacemaker packs up, the supply chain becomes liable

[tec0]

Well in our case it worked out as follow; we did indeed get an individual that normally looks after cars from one of the other car parks to keep an eye on our cars. We paid him a good some of money and he agreed.

Well one hour in the proprietor called us out and ask what the man was doing standing around on HIS property. We explained to him that we hired the man to look after our cars and he was actually doing a brilliant job.

He asked us to take the guard away. Our hand was forced and we took him away and thanked him for his service and give him the agreed amount in full. Not two hours there after another car was vandalized…

So we give the proprietor an ultimatum… either give us security or we will dismiss his services and go else ware. Everyone present signed the ultimatum. So he has till end next week to do something OR it is game over.

We selected his aria and services because it was suppose to be safer than the alternative. This is clearly no longer the case so now the ball is in his hands…

[Dave A]

Well in our case it worked out as follow; we did indeed get an individual that normally looks after cars from one of the other car parks to keep an eye on our cars. We paid him a good some of money and he agreed.

Well one hour in the proprietor called us out and ask what the man was doing standing around on HIS property. We explained to him that we hired the man to look after our cars and he was actually doing a brilliant job.

He asked us to take the guard away. Our hand was forced and we took him away and thanked him for his service and give him the agreed amount in full. Not two hours there after another car was vandalized…

Under these circumstances I'd definitely claim against the proprietor for the cost of repairs.

I'd argue that:

1. "Parking is at your own risk" inherently implies it is also your responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect your vehicle should you choose to do so.
2. Posting a guard at your own cost is a reasonable measure.
3. By denying you this reasonable measure, the proprietor has unfairly reduced your ability to function within the contract.
4. The proprietor is therefor culpable for damages incurred as a result of denying you the right to protect your own property.

[tec0]

Under these circumstances I'd definitely claim against the proprietor for the cost of repairs.

I'd argue that:

1. "Parking is at your own risk" inherently implies it is also your responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect your vehicle should you choose to do so.
2. Posting a guard at your own cost is a reasonable measure.
3. By denying you this reasonable measure, the proprietor has unfairly reduced your ability to function within the contract.
4. The proprietor is therefor culpable for damages incurred as a result of denying you the right to protect your own property.

I completely agree… In my opinion only, the proprietor did not want to share cost to install a security system. It is also of not that it was moderately inexpensive system to begin with. Secondly he demanded that we remove the guard that we paid for.

However I do hope that the ultimatum will change his mind. We also decided to get the insurance companies involved as it is their responsibility to do an independent investigation and must decide who they "the insurance company" wants to hold liable.

In all fairness we tried to be open-minded about this, but if a person wants to be difficult then that person must also be held accountable for his decisions.

[Justloadit]

Ahh a typical south African trait, we want the benifits but do not want the responsibility that goes with it. No wonder our service levels are in the gutters.

[Just Gone]

In my opinion only, the proprietor did not want to share cost to install a security system.

I'm confused because on another thread you said "security was a fallacy" anyway ...... but now you want security !!!

[tec0]

Kevinb > Security in the form of armed guard response VS actual security at the premises is not the same thing at all. The guard is actually there to be seen and if you give the guard the proper tools like security cameras he/she will be effective. Having someone racing down to the parking lot not so much…

[Just Gone]

The guard is actually there to be seen and if you give the guard the proper tools like security cameras he/she will be effective

Oh so the guard with the camera is not a fallacy ? .............. Got news for you - the guard route is the worst route to go - I have never seen a guard turn down a bribe to look the other way, so in my opinion guarding is a fallacy !!

[tec0]

Oh so the guard with the camera is not a fallacy ? .............. Got news for you - the guard route is the worst route to go - I have never seen a guard turn down a bribe to look the other way, so in my opinion guarding is a fallacy !!

Sadly both the guard and the camera system was rejected. So the notion is what it is… That said I do agree with you that it wouldn't have worked if the guard was there and accepted money. So in general how would a security expert such as yourself deal with the problem?

[Just Gone]

So in general how would a security expert such as yourself deal with the problem?

Aah tec0 ............ YOU would need to pay for that advice !!