Car park - liability for damage caused by poor maintennance?

Car park - liability for damage caused by poor maintennance?

Author
Discussion

blueg33

Original Poster:

35,575 posts

223 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Quickish question.

My wife was visiting a supermarket car park recently, it was dark and raining. She is familair with the store in question.

When she pulled out of the parking space onto the road through the carpark, the side of her car caught on a barrier causing damage that will cost just over two thousand pounds.

On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)

I have contacted the supermaket in question who have denied any liability as they say they cannot control incidents like this. I am of the view that they can control it, by adequatly maintaining the car park and it's street furniture. (As it happens, the company I work for is a very large land owner and manages the estates of even larger landowners. My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).

So, what should my next step be? As I see it I have five options:

1. Persue the small claims track in rhe County Court
2. Instruct a "have you had an accident thats not your fault?" type lawyer
3. Instruct my company's usual property litigators (sadly very expensive)
4. Instruct a smaller but well regarded laywer with a track record
5. Do nothing and shell out a couple of grand to get the car fixed?

I am interested to know peoples thoughts especially the lawyers like Breadvan as to the best way to tackle this. I am insanely busy at work and need the quickest route that will bring about a sensible solution that wont leave me massively out of pocket in cash or time terms.

Or of you think that I dont have a resoanble claim, I would be interested to hear the thought process.

If it helps or is relevant, I have already ascertained that the supermarket in question is the freehold land owner and that there is no tenant.

Since my initial letter to the store they have replaced the barrier in question.

Just thought, there is a 6th option - go through my insurance company, but TBH I don't want to claim if I can help it. Even if the store is found liable, the premium will still increase.


TurboHatchback

4,151 posts

152 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
I am no lawyer and this probably not the answer you're looking for but is driving into a stationary bit of scenery really someone else's fault? Perhaps your wife should pay more attention to where she is driving.

Spitfire2

1,912 posts

185 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
If the barrier was in that state when she arrived why didn't she notice it when she was about to enter the space?

Anyway I don't think there is any claim here I'm afraid.

blueg33

Original Poster:

35,575 posts

223 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?


allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Does the Occupiers Liability Act come into play here? You might have some issue establishing that the supermarket failed to properly inspect the car park (logs should be kept, I would have thought).

TurboHatchback

4,151 posts

152 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
You could indeed. Perhaps when driving you should be able to see that where you are driving is clear to do so? I suspect if someone hit you or your car and claimed they couldn't see because it was dark and raining you would not be especially amused.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer and have no idea whether there is a legal claim but if I hit a stationary object it wouldn't even occur to me that it was someone else's fault and I should claim for it.

don4l

10,058 posts

175 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
I haven't seen the barrier in question, however my wife occasionally drives into things that weren't there yesterday.

This never happens to me.

My wife once reversed into our house, which had been there the day before.


whoami

13,151 posts

239 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
Did anyone else hit it, i.e. is there a precedent?

DocJock

8,341 posts

239 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Perhaps the supermarket should make a claim against your wife for driving into, and presumably damaging, their stationary car park furniture?

blueg33

Original Poster:

35,575 posts

223 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
DocJock said:
Perhaps the supermarket should make a claim against your wife for driving into, and presumably damaging, their stationary car park furniture?
I have a witness who has stated that it was alreadyu damaged

blueg33

Original Poster:

35,575 posts

223 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
blueg33 said:
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
You could indeed. Perhaps when driving you should be able to see that where you are driving is clear to do so? I suspect if someone hit you or your car and claimed they couldn't see because it was dark and raining you would not be especially amused.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer and have no idea whether there is a legal claim but if I hit a stationary object it wouldn't even occur to me that it was someone else's fault and I should claim for it.
Really? Unlit skip springs to mind? If you hit one you think it would be your fault? Yet in fact its the skip company that gets prosecuted.

Its interesting to hear the views generally, I think that the owner of the property that is accessed by 3rd parties has a liability to maintain it so that it does not pose a risk. Hence, "wet floor" signs etc.

pc.iow

1,879 posts

202 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
I have a witness who has stated that it was alreadyu damaged
And you have the photos to prove it ….
So let’s see ‘em then.


Raize

1,476 posts

178 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
You should approach the owner of the car park and offer to pay for the damage your wife caused to the barrier.

badboyburt

2,043 posts

176 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Claim Claim Claim that's always the first thing people think about, this country and its businesses are shot to st already yet people still want to rape and pillage them for their own mistakes.

Shameful if you ask me, yes your vehicle was damaged and gladly your wife wasn't, luckily most store car parks have a disclaimer on a post regarding liability,

"*Insert shop name here* cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage to property or vehicles in this car park"

TurboHatchback

4,151 posts

152 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
TurboHatchback said:
blueg33 said:
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
You could indeed. Perhaps when driving you should be able to see that where you are driving is clear to do so? I suspect if someone hit you or your car and claimed they couldn't see because it was dark and raining you would not be especially amused.

Like I said, I am not a lawyer and have no idea whether there is a legal claim but if I hit a stationary object it wouldn't even occur to me that it was someone else's fault and I should claim for it.
Really? Unlit skip springs to mind? If you hit one you think it would be your fault? Yet in fact its the skip company that gets prosecuted.

Its interesting to hear the views generally, I think that the owner of the property that is accessed by 3rd parties has a liability to maintain it so that it does not pose a risk. Hence, "wet floor" signs etc.
If I drove into a skip I would be berating myself for being blind and a massive bell-end rather than trying to sue someone for putting it there without floodlights. I believe it's termed personal responsibility.

I would argue the difference between a wet floor and a skip is that one can be missed by someone using reasonable care and attention, the other cannot.

Spitfire2

1,912 posts

185 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Why would she notice it? It was dark and raining.

If Councils are liable for damage caused by potholes, isn't this similar? You xcoukd argue that a driver should see a pothole?
So we don't need to check our path is clear when its dark or raining? If there is any liability with the supermarket then it is much less than that of the driver in this case.




whoami

13,151 posts

239 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
Quickish question.

My wife was visiting a supermarket car park recently, it was dark and raining. She is familair with the store in question.

When she pulled out of the parking space onto the road through the carpark, the side of her car caught on a barrier causing damage that will cost just over two thousand pounds.

On investigating the matter further it seems that a barrier (steel hoop type) at the car park was damaged and was bent out of line. Because of the damage it protruded into the carraigeway and had a reduced height rendering it invisible. I have a witness who confirmed that the barrier had been in a damaged condition for a few weeks. (she saw me taking photos and asked why)

I have contacted the supermaket in question who have denied any liability as they say they cannot control incidents like this. I am of the view that they can control it, by adequatly maintaining the car park and it's street furniture. (As it happens, the company I work for is a very large land owner and manages the estates of even larger landowners. My Estates Director is convinced that we would accept liability in a case such as this).

So, what should my next step be? As I see it I have five options:

1. Persue the small claims track in rhe County Court
2. Instruct a "have you had an accident thats not your fault?" type lawyer
3. Instruct my company's usual property litigators (sadly very expensive)
4. Instruct a smaller but well regarded laywer with a track record
5. Do nothing and shell out a couple of grand to get the car fixed?

I am interested to know peoples thoughts especially the lawyers like Breadvan as to the best way to tackle this. I am insanely busy at work and need the quickest route that will bring about a sensible solution that wont leave me massively out of pocket in cash or time terms.

Or of you think that I dont have a resoanble claim, I would be interested to hear the thought process.

If it helps or is relevant, I have already ascertained that the supermarket in question is the freehold land owner and that there is no tenant.

Since my initial letter to the store they have replaced the barrier in question.

Just thought, there is a 6th option - go through my insurance company, but TBH I don't want to claim if I can help it. Even if the store is found liable, the premium will still increase.
As it stands, no 5 is your only option.

DocJock

8,341 posts

239 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
blueg33 said:
DocJock said:
Perhaps the supermarket should make a claim against your wife for driving into, and presumably damaging, their stationary car park furniture?
I have a witness who has stated that it was already damaged
Just because it was previously damaged does not absolve her of causing further damage. wink

I can't believe you/she refuse to accept responsibility for her driving into a fixed, stationary object. If it was "dark or raining" she should have had her lights on and be driving within the limits of her vision.

Your skip analogy is also nonsense. There is a legal requirement for a skip left on the street to be lit, there isn't for a piece of street furniture.

Just act like a decent human being and accept responsibility for your/her actions instead of trying to pass them off onto someone else.

Chrisgr31

13,440 posts

254 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
I think I would want to see the pictures to make a judgement on this. My own view without seeing pictures is that I would expect to pay to fix my car myself, and indeed I did on the occasion I reversed in to a lampost in a car park. In my defence, it was dark, the light wasnt on and the post was painted black. I couldnt see it even after I hit it!

However I also think that there is every chance that if it was in one of the properties we manage we would (or our insurance would) be paying up.

BigBo

212 posts

121 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
unless the barrier had been bent out enough to hinder driven past, it sounds like she was simply caught out, I can see where your coming from as it isn't how it was designed but in past experience carpark owners tend to wash there hands of damage claims, If there's some stipulation about maintenance of public barriers or railings you might stand a chance but I've know customers that where charged for damaging paint on concreter pillars and ended up paying us out of pocket