Car Park Liabilty

[Derek Wheeler]

Sorry to hear about that. Sallins is another "hotspot" for vandals. Thats why I park in the village.

Mark has covered most of the issues surrounding security in car parks. But I'll add the following.

Owners of a car park, that is free of charge, are exempt from claims for damages. However I do believe that if you pay for parking, (on street excepted) the onus is on the car park operator/owner to provide protection/supervision of your car and will be liable for damages caused by vandalism regardless of what disclaimers are advertised. Perhaps our resident legal guru can confirm or lambast.

Obviously, this is not the case in Portarlington and it brings us back to the public debate we had with IE reps about putting "car park attendants" in place at known problem areas. The impression I got, was that they don't really care. However, if they go down the route of "pay parking", what I said above,would surely change their attitudes.

Personally, I favour the car park attendant concept, as it not only provides a visible presence, it also helps "manage the car park.

[Thomas J Stamp]

I have an aversion to threads like these

Perhaps our resident legal guru can confirm or lambast.

Actually, neither, as i'm on holidays and cant look it up.

So, here is the senario:

Is there any negligence on the part of IE in the running of an unmanned car park if someones car gets broken into. As Derek says, different idea if it was manned and you'd paid. To use an allusion: If your car gets broken into on Merrion Square do you have the Right to sue Dublin City Council for Damages? Nope.

But, and this is where is it interesting..... if you are in a pub and your car gets damaged in the car park while you are a customer, or if you are in the Tesco car park, you do have a cause of action, but proving causation and remotness and probability can be a big problem. In all liklihood you're not onto a winner and that would explain why it is the policy of IE not to man their car parks.

[Mark Gleeson]

Here be the T&C's from Irish Rail they wash all hands of your property, even looks like they will deny liability if a locomotive comes through hedge and goes over your car

[Thomas J Stamp]

The purpose of clauses like 19.2 there in the attachment is to simply scare genuine claimants away. Phrases such as we are not liabile even for the negligence of ourselves should be banned as being in effect an unfair consumer contract clause as it is implying that IE will NOT be found negligent it dosnt imply they deny they are negligent. Anyway, its baloney, all such clauses are. I have never seen a case being defeated by one and I never will.

[Colm Donoghue]

my 2 pence:
parked in rush and lusk carpark. builders decided to drop mortar on my bonnet, front wing and right wheel. Some bright spark of a builder decided to wipe most of the mortar off the bonnet abd left a skim of mortar behind.

went into the station to complain. "not my problem bud - ring station master in Balbriggan." Rang station master in Balbriggan next day, got a "bad line - you - re - br-k-ing -p c-nt - he-r you" hung up in disgust.
came home next night to find car, parked in a different part of the carpark washed and waxed. I presume they checked the cctv to find my car from the day before, I hadn't given them my reg and they would not know my car.