Car park - liability for damage caused by poor maintennance?
Discussion
It will be a matter of fact and degree as ever, so the extent to which the already damaged barrier became a hazard to the normal user of the carpark.
If the barrier was protruding into the path if a normal user I'd have thought your chances were good. You may need to consider the effect your wife hitting the barrier may have had on it ie does it protrude further in your photos because she hit it?
I'd go with the conditional fee option if you can find someone to take it, if you have legal expenses cover check the terms, at one stage they only covered an accident with another vehicle.
Do a bit of research on occupiers liability as I suspect that will be your way in. As described I think your chances are reasonably good and I worked in this area of law for a while.
If the barrier was protruding into the path if a normal user I'd have thought your chances were good. You may need to consider the effect your wife hitting the barrier may have had on it ie does it protrude further in your photos because she hit it?
I'd go with the conditional fee option if you can find someone to take it, if you have legal expenses cover check the terms, at one stage they only covered an accident with another vehicle.
Do a bit of research on occupiers liability as I suspect that will be your way in. As described I think your chances are reasonably good and I worked in this area of law for a while.
If the barrier has been damaged for a few weeks then presumably several thousand people have driven past it since. If a significant number of those people have had accidents caused by the damaged barrier then I'd consider the supermarket to have been negligent by not repairing it, if however the only person to have had an accident in that time was your wife then I'd put it down to her observational skills (or lack therof). Maybe her accident exacerbated the damage to the barrier making it more obvious when you photographed the scene?
blueg33 said:
Because it will identify the store and increases the risk of prejudicing any case that may arise.
I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Why are you getting so stroppy? You asked for advice regarding an incident for which you will provide no "evidence" and wonder why you don't get the answer of "sue the supermarket". Either provide photographic evidence of the extent the barrier was an obstruction which could not be seen/ was obtrusive or man up and get the car fixed by either insurance claim or paying yourself.I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
BTW Happy Christmas!!
You know what puzzles me? The OP describes himself as:
Property Developer and Investor (Large Scale).
He also says he works for a large landowner who also manages even larger estates.
Wouldn't such a person know the law and not need to resort to a random internet forum for advice in this situation?
Just wondering.
FWIW a colleague of mine ean into a low barrier which was bent and protruding into a car parking space in a Tesco car park. He made a direct claim which was rejected. He began action but was advised to drop it after the first official response to it was received on the grounds that he had little chance of success.
It seems these places are well versed in handling these issues. If they reject your initial approach, the odds are they know what they're doing.
Property Developer and Investor (Large Scale).
He also says he works for a large landowner who also manages even larger estates.
Wouldn't such a person know the law and not need to resort to a random internet forum for advice in this situation?
Just wondering.
FWIW a colleague of mine ean into a low barrier which was bent and protruding into a car parking space in a Tesco car park. He made a direct claim which was rejected. He began action but was advised to drop it after the first official response to it was received on the grounds that he had little chance of success.
It seems these places are well versed in handling these issues. If they reject your initial approach, the odds are they know what they're doing.
REALIST123 said:
You know what puzzles me? The OP describes himself as:
Property Developer and Investor (Large Scale).
He also says he works for a large landowner who also manages even larger estates.
Wouldn't such a person know the law and not need to resort to a random internet forum for advice in this situation?
Just wondering.
FWIW a colleague of mine ean into a low barrier which was bent and protruding into a car parking space in a Tesco car park. He made a direct claim which was rejected. He began action but was advised to drop it after the first official response to it was received on the grounds that he had little chance of success.
It seems these places are well versed in handling these issues. If they reject your initial approach, the odds are they know what they're doing.
To answer hour first question I do not deal directly with estates management. It's not my role. I have an overview. As I said I have spoken to my estates director. They lawyers we use at work are rather expensive. Property Developer and Investor (Large Scale).
He also says he works for a large landowner who also manages even larger estates.
Wouldn't such a person know the law and not need to resort to a random internet forum for advice in this situation?
Just wondering.
FWIW a colleague of mine ean into a low barrier which was bent and protruding into a car parking space in a Tesco car park. He made a direct claim which was rejected. He began action but was advised to drop it after the first official response to it was received on the grounds that he had little chance of success.
It seems these places are well versed in handling these issues. If they reject your initial approach, the odds are they know what they're doing.
where was the taxpayer ever mentioned? allergictocheese said:
blueg33 said:
Because it will identify the store and increases the risk of prejudicing any case that may arise.
I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Hokum pokum. Posting photographs of the car park here or anywhere else will have no prejudicial effect on your dispute. I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Piglet above provides the correct "it depends on what the facts are" answer to the question of whether the shop is liable. Posting the photos could assist people here in forming a view on the facts, but it is a noble tradition in SPL to seek advice whilst being as opaque as possible about the facts that you seek advice on.
Breadvan72 said:
allergictocheese said:
blueg33 said:
Because it will identify the store and increases the risk of prejudicing any case that may arise.
I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Hokum pokum. Posting photographs of the car park here or anywhere else will have no prejudicial effect on your dispute. I should have known better, as usual ph springs to judgement , flaming the op. Why are most people incapable of taking an op at face value?
There is little point in me fabricating stuff and posting it on the net.
Like I said, my view changed after I saw the barrier.
I suspect the next response will suggest that I am annoyed because I didn't get the answer I wanted. Well that will be wrong too.
Merry Christmas
Piglet above provides the correct "it depends on what the facts are" answer to the question of whether the shop is liable. Posting the photos could assist people here in forming a view on the facts, but it is a noble tradition in SPL to seek advice whilst being as opaque as possible about the facts that you seek advice on.
blueg33 said:
I am not going to post the photos herd for blindingly obvious reasons.
My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
given these two statements, I don't really understand where you saw this thread heading!My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
dave123456 said:
blueg33 said:
I am not going to post the photos herd for blindingly obvious reasons.
My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
given these two statements, I don't really understand where you saw this thread heading!My initial reaction was the same as many here, that it was my wife's fault. Then I visited the car park and changed my mind.
I am just going to pass it to the car insurers, I have spoken to them this morning, emailed them the pics and the obligatory bad drawing. Their gut feel, is 50/50 barrier should have been maintained, wife shouldn't have hit it. I am sending her christmas pressie back and paying her excess..........
Thanks all for your input, apologies if I came across as grouchy.
PS. Occupiers Liability Act case histories are interesting. In this type of event they seem to go either way, usually won by the claimant initially with a number being overturned at appeal
Does she need a hulking great 4x4 to move about in?
It would seem at least based on a reasonable interpretation that she and large cars with unique visibility considerations don't mix?
I only say that given you said the barrier has been broken for weeks, and yet one presumes didn't leave a long line of wrecked cars in its wake. Others managed to navigate around it just fine, I'd posit probably the vast majority.
It would seem at least based on a reasonable interpretation that she and large cars with unique visibility considerations don't mix?
I only say that given you said the barrier has been broken for weeks, and yet one presumes didn't leave a long line of wrecked cars in its wake. Others managed to navigate around it just fine, I'd posit probably the vast majority.
The Spruce goose said:
this dangerous obtrusion must have been a real hazard then, how many other people hit it?
How would I know? It could be lots it could be none. I dont actually live my life in supermarket carparks. There was debris around the barrier that wasnt from my wife's car. I do know that the letter we had from them on the subject was send to a completely different address, but postie recognised our nameblueg33 said:
addey said:
So how did she manage to get into the space without hitting it?
It has nothing to do with the space she was in, it's on the left turn onto the service road. "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."
which implies she did it coming out of the space, hence why I asked. But now you say it happened as she turned left onto the service road, which implies she would have driven towards this 'junction' and any obstruction would have been clearly visible?
Implying visibility or otherwise of the obstruction without seeing the scene itself is pointless.
Also, if other people have hit the barrier and reported it to the supermarket, there will be logs, which should be religiously kept. These logs would more than likely be made available to someone in the event a claim was forthcoming (or perhaps even prior to issuing).
On a general note, civil court cases are not generally the sort of ambush event you see on TV. Generally speaking, both sides in a dispute have all their cards on the table well before any trial takes places. All the relevant information (documents, data, witness statements, physical evidence) is shared and analysed beforehand. If, and it's a big if, both sides get to trial, they do so knowing full well what the areas of dispute are and what arguments will be put forward. You don't typically get a star witness bursting into court at the last minute to deliver a knock out blow, that's not how it works. Companies, especially at the larger end, tend to comply as best they can with procedures and don't / can't lie to the other side about the existence of documents or facts simply because it doesn't suit their case. I'm sure some funny business goes on but you shouldn't have a starting point of assuming the other side will be dishonest.
The above is one reason why the idea of not posing pictures for fear of prejudicing your claim doesn't really hold water.
Also, if other people have hit the barrier and reported it to the supermarket, there will be logs, which should be religiously kept. These logs would more than likely be made available to someone in the event a claim was forthcoming (or perhaps even prior to issuing).
On a general note, civil court cases are not generally the sort of ambush event you see on TV. Generally speaking, both sides in a dispute have all their cards on the table well before any trial takes places. All the relevant information (documents, data, witness statements, physical evidence) is shared and analysed beforehand. If, and it's a big if, both sides get to trial, they do so knowing full well what the areas of dispute are and what arguments will be put forward. You don't typically get a star witness bursting into court at the last minute to deliver a knock out blow, that's not how it works. Companies, especially at the larger end, tend to comply as best they can with procedures and don't / can't lie to the other side about the existence of documents or facts simply because it doesn't suit their case. I'm sure some funny business goes on but you shouldn't have a starting point of assuming the other side will be dishonest.
The above is one reason why the idea of not posing pictures for fear of prejudicing your claim doesn't really hold water.
Depends on supermarket and circumstances.I drove into a supermarket ,one night looking for a space in one part. I couldn't find one and decided to drive through the empty P & T section to turn ,rather than do a 3 point in a badly lit car park. I was only doing a few MPH( it was a badly lit car park) ,fortunately and stopped when I heard a noise from underneath. Reversing, I found a portion of a bollard ( remainder had been removed, but no warning device placed on the stump). I advised the store of this hazard to have similar PH like accusations, and days later, no warning on this hazard. In daylight, I took a photo and sent it into HQ ,mentioning that this had scratched my sump, but lower cars could suffer more severe damage. Reply was to take my car for inspection/repair at their expense and store was ordered to place a HiVis warning over this .
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff