What's new

We are not responsible... (1 Viewer)

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
...for damage, theft, whatever.

Does this phrase actually mean anything legally?

My roommate's car got broken into while in our parking lot. They shattered his passenger side window and stole his stereo. The whole thing was caught on tape, but as it happens often with security systems, it's way too blurry for any kind of ID. The concierge was there, and never saw a thing on the monitor, he was reading or dealing with people at the front desk (another camera was monitoring him).

Now the lease does say the building isn't responsible for any damage to the cars. The lot is gated, although it's wide open to any passerby. We pay $30 a month for parking.

In college I worked at the bookstore's bag check for a few weeks and we had this big sign saying we are not responsible for any lost bags. I had always thought that did not make any sense. If we aren't responsible for stuff stolen on our premisses, who the hell is?!

I think the "we are not responsible" is one of those phrases that mean very little legally and easily fall apart under any kind of scrutiny. Including those few words on the lease or posting them in places like parking lots, bag checks, coat checks etc... costs nothing, and if it deters even one claim for compensation, then it's worth it for them. Am I right?

--
H
 

Carl Miller

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Messages
1,461
I think the "we are not responsible" is one of those phrases that mean very little legally and easily fall apart under any kind of scrutiny. Including those few words on the lease or posting them in places like parking lots, bag checks, coat checks etc... costs nothing, and if it deters even one claim for compensation, then it's worth it for them. Am I right?
Not in this case. A lease is a binding contract. You sign the lease, you're agreeing to the terms within it. As long as it's legal for the building to put that clause in there, your roommate is out of luck.

The only thing that might change this in your case is if the concierge was involved in which case the building as the employer could be held liable for the actions of its employee while on the job.

As for other situations, like bag checks and such, I don't know.
 

Joseph DeMartino

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
8,311
Location
Florida
Real Name
Joseph DeMartino
If we aren't responsible for stuff stolen on our premisses, who the hell is?!
Er, the thief? How about the person who chose to turn their bag over to a complete stranger rather than take responsiblity for it by taking the extra two minutes needed to put it in their car, or learning not to carry bas into the store?

The "not responsible" signs announce the obvious - that the store/building/whatever is not responsible for providing perfect security and a totally crime-proof environment. The security gates, card keys and TV monitors at the parking tower for the building where I work are there to prevent non-tenant cars from parking in the spaces the users of the building pay for. They are neither intended to nor capable of keeping thieves on foot out of the tower - though they may, in fact, deter some crime.

Doing more than that is possible, but it would take more time and cost more money than the landlord or the tenants are willing to invest. Hence the "not responsible" sign - which is just as good in court as a "No swimming", "No trespassing" or "Beware of dog" sign in a case involving someone who willfully ignored the warning and suffered the consequences.
 

David Baranyi

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
81
I hope the people suing the airlines, the airports, and the Port Authority of New York for "lax security" on September 11th are reading what Joseph had said.
 

Richard Travale

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2001
Messages
3,424
Location
The Island, Canada
Real Name
Rich Travale
IIRC anything you sign like this can be fought in court on the basis that you signed the lease (or left your bag at the front) under duress. How? Well, the claim is that you were forced to sign the lease because if you didn't, you could not park your car there (you could not shop at the store if you kept your bag), therefore any contract that you signed while under duress should be null and void. Now, I'm probably really over simplifying this but your best bet is to talk to a lawyer.
Main Entry: du·ress
Pronunciation: du-'res also dyu-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English duresse, from Middle French duresce hardness, severity, from Latin duritia, from durus
Date: 15th century
1 : forcible restraint or restriction
2 : compulsion by threat; specifically : unlawful constraint
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
Richard, but can't the counter argument say that you aren't forced to do those things? You aren't 'forced' to leave your bag at the door, you have every option to go back and leave it in your car. Or you could park your car someplace else, you aren't 'forced' into parking it there.

It may not be easy to do those other options, but you DO have those options so how can anyone claim they were under duress?


Holadem, sorry about the unfortunate incident...
If we aren't responsible for stuff stolen on our premisses, who the hell is?!
Wouldn't it be the owner of the item? If you see a sign like that and still hand over your posessions, you have no one to blame but yourself if they ever get stollen. Kind of like putting stuff out on my lawn in the middle of the night. If it ever got stollen, it may not be because of me, but it's my responsibility to make sure that stuff is safe and protected.

I wonder just how protected these companies are with these signs? I can see the company not being responsible if someone tied up the guard and stole your car, but are they also off the hook if they leave your keys in the car, leave the doors open, and sleep at their post?

Unfortunately, there's a point where it becomes a fine line and you need black and white rules so that the company doesn't get slammed with law suits. I'm sure if you can prove negligence on the guards part, you may be able to shift the responsibility, but without those signs, can you imagine how much the parking costs would go up?
 

Shawn Solar

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 12, 2001
Messages
763
I was talking to a lawyer friend that had a case where his car was broken into in a parking lot. Damaged and everything. Of corse the not responsible for damaged or stolen property sign was there but after 18 months of court they ruled in his favour.Because he paid to park there it made the lot owners liable. If it were free parking then he would of lost.
 

Justin Lane

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2000
Messages
2,149
I was talking to a lawyer friend that had a case where his car was broken into in a parking lot. Damaged and everything. Of corse the not responsible for damaged or stolen property sign was there but after 18 months of court they ruled in his favour.Because he paid to park there it made the lot owners liable. If it were free parking then he would of lost.
A sign stating so and so is not responsible very rarely if ever holds up in court. If you signed something like a lease, that is another story, as you agreed to a contract. Either way, it is usually not worth the legal expenses of winning such a case when it is all said and done.

J
 

BrianW

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 1999
Messages
2,563
Real Name
Brian
I wonder just how protected these companies are with these signs? I can see the company not being responsible if someone tied up the guard and stole your car, but are they also off the hook if they leave your keys in the car, leave the doors open, and sleep at their post?
This is a fair question. I've seen cases where the "Not Responsible" sign didn't apply where negligence or outright criminal activity could be shown to have taken place. I've also heard of cases where the exchange of money makes the disclaiming party legally responsible regardless of any signs that may be posted.

IANAL.
 

Shawn Solar

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 12, 2001
Messages
763
Just to add. It works in favour of the criminal too. One place where we caught a theif on our security cameras(I installed) walked because we did not have proper signs stating cameras on premise and our footage was dismissed.
 

david stark

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
256
A sign stating so and so is not responsible very rarely if ever holds up in court. If you signed something like a lease, that is another story, as you agreed to a contract. Either way, it is usually not worth the legal expenses of winning such a case when it is all said and done.
I suspect the companies posting these signs know as much. If you do complain they will just come out with, well the sign was there we are not responsible. And will force you to go to court and in most cases that will dissuade most people.
 

Yee-Ming

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2002
Messages
4,502
Location
"on a little street in Singapore"
Real Name
Yee Ming Lim
One place where we caught a theif on our security cameras(I installed) walked because we did not have proper signs stating cameras on premise and our footage was dismissed.
That is absolutely bizarre. You mean a criminal can argue because he had a reasonable expectation that his criminal acts would not be observed by camera, he was entitled to "privacy" etc?

I'd understand if it was thrown out because of a problem with chain of custody, e.g. the tapes had been left unattended and theoretically open to tampering for a period before they were handed to the police, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying.
 

Philip_G

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2000
Messages
5,030
the only good example I can think of is a valet service, on the back of the card they give you it will say "we are not responsible.."
I think (and I am way far from a lawyer) in this case you'd need to prove that handing your car over constitutes a bailment, but with the apartment parking lot I think he's hosed.

his best bet is probably to speak with a lawyer if the value of the gear is enough to be worth it. Free advice is worth just that :D

maybe it's time to invest in an alarm, I've always found that a blinking LED is enough to frighten off the average smash and dash thief. My old apt. complex had 6 cars broken into in something like 3 months, mine was never touched, and I'm probably the only one with something worth taking in the car (it was int he ghetto...)
 

Kevin Thompson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
79
So if the thief was injured during the comission of this vehicular break-in, who would he sue--the car owner, or the owner of the real property?
 

Charles J P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2000
Messages
2,049
Location
Omaha, NE
Real Name
CJ Paul
In college, the student bookstore had a duel policy of "no backpacks" and "we are not responsible for theft...yada yada. Basically, due to complaints, one of the policies had to go. You literally had nowhere to put your bag (you are walking on campus and dont have access to your car/home) except the front of the door, but no one is going to stop anyone from stealing your bag since every patron that walked out would pick up a backpack before the walked out. Eventually the store suggested you leave your pack at the door, but they let you carry it with you while in the store if you chose to.
 

Chris Lockwood

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 21, 1999
Messages
3,215
> Hence the "not responsible" sign - which is just as good in court as a "No swimming", "No trespassing" or "Beware of dog" sign in a case involving someone who willfully ignored the warning and suffered the consequences.

Those signs won't protect you when some kid drowns in your pool or gets bitten by your dog. Not in a country where someone can break into your house, injure themselves, & sue you for their "pain & suffering".

But the signs probably do fool some people into & not bothering to see a lawyer.

One of my favorite warnings is on most software. It basically says the software isn't necessarily good for anything.

And what about the concept that opening the software package constitutes acceptance of the user agreement (which might be inside the box). Anyone ever test that in court?
 

Jason_Els

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Messages
1,096
We pay $30 a month for parking.
Ah, that's the magic word! As they accept money for parking it's an explicit contract of bailment and, as such, they must pursue "extraordinary care" with the car. That sign is for the birds (and dupes) who think it means something. If they didn't charge you'd have a harder time of it but if they charge you it's easy. It's also easier in that the parking lot is monitored and that implies they are assuming security responsibilities. Score 2 major points in your favor. Sue 'em.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
As they accept money for parking it's an explicit contract of bailment and, as such, they must pursue "extraordinary care" with the car.
I don't claim to be a lawyer so please don't take my response as anything but speculation.

Why would the company need to take "extraordinary care" of the car just because money is involved? Money doesn't mean you are entitled to everything. In this case, aren't you just paying to allow your car to sit there? Isn't that all you've bought?

Parking lots are merely areas of land that you 'rent'. The lot owners are allowing you to use their land to leave your car. This is all you're paying for.

If you want "extraordinary care", then expect to pay more than just $30.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,552
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top