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