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 context: a parking lot owner is facing a claim for negligence, and the statement posits that the owner cannot be sued if the exclusion clause says cars are parked at owner's risk and that no liability is accepted for any damage.
Option 1 (True): This claim would assert that the exclusion clause completely shields the owner from liability for any damage or injury arising from negligence. However, in most legal systems, such broad exclusion clauses are not permitted to wholly bar negligence claims, especially for personal injury or where there is a duty of care. The clause attempts to contract away fundamental duties, which courts are often reluctant to enforce when negligence is involved. Therefore, this option is not correct because the mere presence of an exclusion clause does not automatically eliminate liability for negligence.
Option 2 (False): Saying that the owner cannot be sued because of the exclusion clause is inaccurate. Even with an exclusion clause, the owner may still be liable for negligent conduct if the clause is found unenforceable, ambiguous, or contrary to law. Courts may scrutinize such clauses for reasonableness, clarity, and whether they attempt to limit liability for fundamental duties of care. In many jurisdictions, exclusion or limitation clauses cannot operate to completely shield a party from liability for negligence that causes injury or damage, particularly if there is gross negligence, intentional harm, or violations of statutory duties. Moreover, the clause could be subject to consumer protection rules or contractual standards that require clarity and conspicuousness for the liability limitation to be enforceable.
Option 3 (Alternative reasoning about scope): Some may worry about the literal breadth of the clause—‘No liability is accepted for any damage caused to any person, vehicle or visitor howsoever caused.’ Even if interpreted broadly, enforcement tends not to suspend liability for negligence in all cases. Jurisdictions often require the clause to clearly communicate exclusion of liability and to be reasonable in its scope and bargaining positions. The takeaway is that the clause does not automatically nullify a negligence action; there are checks and balances in place.
Option 4 (Alternative about public policy): Public policy concerns may override overly broad exclusion clauses in situations where safety and reasonable care are required. A parking facility owes a duty of care to patrons, and a blanket exclusion that attempts to waive that duty is unlikely to be upheld in all circumstances. This further supports that the statement claiming immunity from suit is incorrect.
In summary, while exclusion clauses can limit liability under certain conditions, they do not categorically prevent negligence suits in all cases. The correct interpretation is that the statement is false because liability for negligence can still be pursued, subject to later legal scrutiny of the clause’s validity and enforceability.

MCD2070 - T2 - 2025 Express Terms and Exemption Clauses Quiz

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.”

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

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.