A parking lot who is liable for negligence CANNOT be sued if the exclusion clause states: “Cars parked at owner’s risk. No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.”

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: A parking lot owner who is liable for negligence CANNOT be sued if the exclusion clause states: “Cars parked at owner’s risk. No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.”

Option 1: True
- This statement argues that the exclusion clause prevents any liability for negligence. In many legal systems, exclusion or limitation clauses attempting to bar liability for negligence are not automatically enforceable, especially in contexts involving consumer protection, public safety, or breaches of the duty of care. The mere presence of such a clause does not automatically shield the owner from liability.
- A key misconception here is assuming an exclusion clause can completely nullify negligence. Courts often examine the reasonableness, clarity, and applicability of such clauses. If the clause is overly broad, unclear, or contravenes mandatory limitations, it may be deemed unenforceable.
- Additionally, certain jurisdictions prohibit excluding liability for personal injury or property damage arising from negligence, or require that such clauses be conspicuous and explicit. Therefore, stating that negligence cannot lead to liability simply because of a broad exclusion clause is not generally correct.

Option 2: False
- This statement is more accurate because it aligns with the general principle that negligence liability cannot always be renounced by an exclusion clause. The owner can still be held responsible for negligent damage to visitors or vehicles if the clause is found unenforceable or inapplicable. 
- Reasons the clause may fail: it could be deemed unfair, insufficiently clear, or not incorporated properly; it might conflict with statutory protections or consumer rights; or the negligence involved could be a matter of strict liability in certain contexts, where disclaimers do not apply.
- Practically, these clauses are often scrutinized for their scope, the relationship of the parties, and whether they attempted to contract away fundamental duties of care.

Why the other options are incorrect in this context:
- If someone argues True, they overlook enforceability requirements and exceptions to exclusion clauses; such a blanket statement ignores legal doctrines like reasonableness, incorporation, and statutory constraints that frequently limit or nullify broad liability waivers.
- The claim assumes that a contract clause can universally immunize a party from negligence claims, which contradicts many consumer and tort-law standards that protect individuals from being left without recourse when care is negligent.

Synthesis: The more nuanced and legally consistent position is that the exclusion clause does not categorically prevent a negligence claim; therefore, the statement asserting that the parking lot owner cannot be sued due to the clause is not correct in typical legal frameworks.

A parking lot who is liable for negligence CANNOT be sued if the exclusion clause states: “Cars parked at owner’s risk. No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.”

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

The rules to interpreting exclusions clauses include the ambiguity rule, negligence rule, presumption against fundamental breach and four corners rule.

This case concluded that under the ambiguity rule, an exemption clause that excludes liability for breach of warranty will not be sufficient against liability for breach of condition.