Staff car park "liability waiver sign" issue.

[andreatallo]

Hi, asking for advice on this issue, any comment would be appreciated.



A company has a staff car park with 3 signs at entrance.
1st sign:- Company does not accept any liability for damage.
2nd sign;-Company states that there are surveillance camera's in use.
3rd sign:-Company states that the staff car park is patrolled by security firm for security.


A employee parks his car in staff car park, at the end of shift he notices that all his tyres have been vandalised.
He asks his company for footage of surveillance camera, and if the security firm who patrols the staff car park has seen any one who was not supposed to be in the car park.

The company responds that the surveillance camera's are dummy camera's.
The security firm does not patrol the car park due to they have no time to do so, due to do other duties. (booking in lorries).

Other info:-
It turns out the company is aware that there has been a high level of crime in the car park, for example:-
Cars being vandalised many times.
trespassers on foot, and in cars.
A instance of stalking.
evidence of drug users being present.


My question is;-
Is the sign "Company does not accept liability for damage" valid if :-a) Signs 2 and 3 are false, (Company giving false sense of security to employee's using private staff car park).
b) Company know high level of crime but has failed to act. (duty of care to employee's).

As I said any comments would be appreciated.

[des8]

To prove someone is liable you need to prove negligence. This in effect is that the damage could "Reasonably" have been avoided.
How would you suggest the employer could reasonably have avoided the vandalism to the car?

I suggest the signs weren't to give a false sense of security to users, but to deter vandals.
And what would you have done differently to protect your car if the signs weren't present? stood guard all day?

Insurance claim

[charitynjw]

I tend to agree with des8 , with the addition of a police complaint/notification, esp if, as you mention a possible stalker, that is relevant.

[andreatallo]

Hi, asking for advice on this issue, any comment would be appreciated.



A company has a staff car park with 3 signs at entrance.
1st sign:- Company does not accept any liability for damage.
2nd sign;-Company states that there are surveillance camera's in use.
3rd sign:-Company states that the staff car park is patrolled by security firm for security.


A employee parks his car in staff car park, at the end of shift he notices that all his tyres have been vandalised.
He asks his company for footage of surveillance camera, and if the security firm who patrols the staff car park has seen any one who was not supposed to be in the car park.

The company responds that the surveillance camera's are dummy camera's.
The security firm does not patrol the car park due to they have no time to do so, due to do other duties. (booking in lorries).

Other info:-
It turns out the company is aware that there has been a high level of crime in the car park, for example:-
Cars being vandalised many times.
trespassers on foot, and in cars.
A instance of stalking.
evidence of drug users being present.


My question is;-
Is the sign "Company does not accept liability for damage" valid if :-a) Signs 2 and 3 are false, (Company giving false sense of security to employee's using private staff car park).
b) Company know high level of crime but has failed to act. (duty of care to employee's).

As I said any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks for reply, just a quick question.
As you stated that for a claim you would need to prove negligence.
Would the company not following there SHEQ department guidance be negligence.
I have found out that the company was advised by there SHEQ department to install genuine CCTV cameras due to high level of crime months ago, but due to costs they did not follow the advice
The company turns over is in the millions. So I would suggest that the company could not use the excuse that they did not follow SHEQ advice due to cost restrictions, but a oversight.
another point, which I do not know if it will be relevant. The signs were there before the crime spree happened.
Thanks again for any advice.

[andreatallo]

I tend to agree with des8 , with the addition of a police complaint/notification, esp if, as you mention a possible stalker, that is relevant.

Thanks for reply, just a quick question.
As stated that for a claim you would need to prove negligence.
Would the company not following there SHEQ department guidance be negligence.
I have found out that the company was advised by there SHEQ department to install genuine CCTV cameras due to high level of crime months ago, but due to costs they did not follow the advice
The company turns over is in the millions. So I would suggest that the company could not use the excuse that they did not follow SHEQ advice due to cost restrictions.
another point, which I do not know if it will be relevant. The signs were there before the crime spree happened.
Thanks again for any advice.

[andreatallo]

To prove someone is liable you need to prove negligence. This in effect is that the damage could "Reasonably" have been avoided.
How would you suggest the employer could reasonably have avoided the vandalism to the car?

I suggest the signs weren't to give a false sense of security to users, but to deter vandals.
And what would you have done differently to protect your car if the signs weren't present? stood guard all day?

Insurance claim

Thanks for reply, just a quick question.
As you stated that for a claim you would need to prove negligence.
Would the company not following there SHEQ department guidance be negligence.
I have found out that the company was advised by there SHEQ department to install genuine CCTV cameras due to high level of crime months ago, but due to costs they did not follow the advice
The company turns over is in the millions. So I would suggest that the company could not use the excuse that they did not follow SHEQ advice due to cost restrictions.
another point, which I do not know if it will be relevant. The signs were there before the crime spree happened.
Thanks again for any advice.

[des8]

Since posting I have found one fleeting reference to a company being found liable for damage caused by a third party to an employee's car.
However no details were provided.

IMO you would be hard pressed to show your employer was negligent. in spite of not following the guidance.
Does an employer's duty of care extend to protecting his employees' cars by installing security measures?
Generally, no duty of care arises in relation to pure omissions; i.e.not doing something which if done would minimise or prevent harm to another individual.

Were you thinking of initiating a court action against your employer?...... bang goes your chances of promotion!
I think your best course of action is a claim on your insurance and let them take it up with your employer if they think it worthwhile.

[andreatallo]

Since posting I have found one fleeting reference to a company being found liable for damage caused by a third party to an employee's car.
However no details were provided.

IMO you would be hard pressed to show your employer was negligent. in spite of not following the guidance.
Does an employer's duty of care extend to protecting his employees' cars by installing security measures?
Generally, no duty of care arises in relation to pure omissions; i.e.not doing something which if done would minimise or prevent harm to another individual.

Were you thinking of initiating a court action against your employer?...... bang goes your chances of promotion!
I think your best course of action is a claim on your insurance and let them take it up with your employer if they think it worthwhile.

Not thinking of court action, seeking advice for a another individual. I was going to advise him to ask company to offer X amount as good will gesture, as a resolution through the companies grievance procedure, but wasted to seek advice on a plan B if company refused. I am now thinking the plan A is the only choice. Thanks for comments, much appreciated.

[jhonpaul]

I think that I suggest that the signs weren't to give a false sense of security to users, but to deter vandals.By using the signs that car tyres has been vandalised. And what would you have done differently to protect your car if the signs were not present?And you can claim the insurance if you has you can cover what the damage has appeared to you car...