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 and options:
A parking lot question presents the statement: “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.’” Answer options: True, False.

Option 1: True
Explain why this is incorrect: An exclusion clause attempting to bar all liability for negligence is generally not effective in preventing a claim for negligent damage. In many legal systems, exclusion or limitation clauses cannot exclude liability for negligence that causes personal injury or property damage, especially where the party with the exclusion had a duty of care. Such clauses are often subject to rules that protect consumers or the public from unconscionable or improper waivers. The phrasing here is sweeping and would typically be challenged unless narrowly tailored to exclude only non-negligent scenarios or clearly specified limitations, but even then it cannot completely shield a party from liability for negligent conduct in many jurisdictions. Misconception to note: assuming that any exclusion clause completely immunizes a party from negligence claims ignores longstanding principles that negligence entails a breach of duty of care and that some public policy limitations apply to waivers in premises liability.

Option 2: False
Explain why this is correct: The statement that a property owner (or “parking lot”) cannot be sued for negligence simply because there is an exclusion clause is generally incorrect. While exclusion clauses can influence the scope of remedies or limit damages in some contracts, they do not automatically immunize a party from liability for negligence. Courts often scrutinize such clauses, and they may be void or limited when they attempt to exclude liability for personal injury or property damage caused by negligence. This reflects the principle that negligence involves a breach of duty of care, and public policy disfavors absolving parties entirely from responsibility for such conduct through broad waivers.

Additional considerations:
- The enforceability of exclusion clauses can depend on jurisdiction, the nature of the relationship (business-to-consumer vs. business-to-business), and whether the clause was fairly bargained or clearly communicated.
- Some clauses may limit liability for certain types of damages or require proof of negligence, but blanket suppression of all negligence claims is rarely upheld.
- The presence of such a clause does not automatically negate all possible claims; courts may allow claims to proceed or strike the clause as unenforceable.

Summary takeaway:
- The sweeping claim in the True option is generally not supported, because exclusion clauses do not automatically immunize a negligent party from liability in most legal contexts.
- The False option aligns with the standard legal understanding that liability for negligence can still be pursued despite attempt to exclude it via an exclusion clause, subject to jurisdictional rules and exceptions.

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.

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

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.”

Under Australian law, which of the following best outlines when an unsigned exclusion clause may be enforceable in a project contract as discussed in class?

Which of the following is not a requirement for an exclusion clause to be valid?

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.”

For the negligence rule to apply, the exemption clause must make it clear that liability for negligence is excluded.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler