Car park sign - confused.
Discussion
randlemarcus said:
Of course not. Landholder trying (badly spelled, but that doesn't matter as the very air shimmers there, judging by the photography) to stop folks walking across (thus the sign being the exact width of the pedestrian bit) without actually fencing the whole thing off.
Only this gap in the hedge has been blocked by the sign, there is a footpath gap either side and also about another 4 open access ways to enter from the other side of the car park - no signs there.It is not possible to exclude the liability of an occupier of land for causing someone personal injury or death. The duty of care that an occupier owes to an adult trespasser is, however, less stringent than the duty owed to someone who is on the property with express or implied permission.
PAULJ5555 said:
randlemarcus said:
Of course not. Landholder trying (badly spelled, but that doesn't matter as the very air shimmers there, judging by the photography) to stop folks walking across (thus the sign being the exact width of the pedestrian bit) without actually fencing the whole thing off.
Only this gap in the hedge has been blocked by the sign, there is a footpath gap either side and also about another 4 open access ways to enter from the other side of the car park - no signs there.But that gap is probably the most natural, direct route to take a short cut across the car park rather than having to walk all the way round.
By blocking this entrance you are already being subconsciously "encouraged" to walk around the car park rather than through it.
I can understand the thinking behind the sign (I suspect the land owner has probably had quite a few people complain of near misses with pedestrians cutting through the car park), but I have to say that I'd be incredibly embarrassed to have such a misspelt sign on My property for all the World to see!
Please tell Me that the car park belongs to a sign writing company! - That would just be unbelievably funny!
Breadvan72 said:
It is not possible to exclude the liability of an occupier of land for causing someone personal injury or death. The duty of care that an occupier owes to an adult trespasser is, however, less stringent than the duty owed to someone who is on the property with express or implied permission.
What would you know? Do you work for the car park owner? Or are you the signwriter? I smell a vested interest...
It almost seems like they could be shooting themselves in the foot with thier wording
If you walk on the road you do so at your own risk
seems rather convoluted, someone could argue that it expressly gives them permission to walk on the road, so they are not a trespasser therefore the more stringent duty of care should apply
where as a far simpler message simply telling people to stick to the foot path would leave little doubt that someone choosing to ignore the instructions to use the footpath is a trespasser
If you walk on the road you do so at your own risk
seems rather convoluted, someone could argue that it expressly gives them permission to walk on the road, so they are not a trespasser therefore the more stringent duty of care should apply
where as a far simpler message simply telling people to stick to the foot path would leave little doubt that someone choosing to ignore the instructions to use the footpath is a trespasser
4rephill said:
PAULJ5555 said:
randlemarcus said:
Of course not. Landholder trying (badly spelled, but that doesn't matter as the very air shimmers there, judging by the photography) to stop folks walking across (thus the sign being the exact width of the pedestrian bit) without actually fencing the whole thing off.
Only this gap in the hedge has been blocked by the sign, there is a footpath gap either side and also about another 4 open access ways to enter from the other side of the car park - no signs there.But that gap is probably the most natural, direct route to take a short cut across the car park rather than having to walk all the way round.
By blocking this entrance you are already being subconsciously "encouraged" to walk around the car park rather than through it.
I can understand the thinking behind the sign (I suspect the land owner has probably had quite a few people complain of near misses with pedestrians cutting through the car park), but I have to say that I'd be incredibly embarrassed to have such a misspelt sign on My property for all the World to see!
Please tell Me that the car park belongs to a sign writing company! - That would just be unbelievably funny!
Its a medical research facility that rents the building/carpark off the hospital. Lots of clever people in there. The car park is gated to stop patients parking in there and blocking their spaces.
ging84 said:
It almost seems like they could be shooting themselves in the foot with thier wording
If you walk on the road you do so at your own risk
seems rather convoluted, someone could argue that it expressly gives them permission to walk on the road, so they are not a trespasser therefore the more stringent duty of care should apply
where as a far simpler message simply telling people to stick to the foot path would leave little doubt that someone choosing to ignore the instructions to use the footpath is a trespasser
The mis spelled words "no public thoroughfare" govern the rest of the sign, I would say. The bit about at your own risk is useless verbiage, as it can't exclude even the more limited duty of care owed to a trespasser.If you walk on the road you do so at your own risk
seems rather convoluted, someone could argue that it expressly gives them permission to walk on the road, so they are not a trespasser therefore the more stringent duty of care should apply
where as a far simpler message simply telling people to stick to the foot path would leave little doubt that someone choosing to ignore the instructions to use the footpath is a trespasser
johnfm, Drat! Busted again. Off to the Job Centre for the next gig ....
vxr8mate said:
Do the same rules apply to public car parks?
I often see signs stating 'We accept no responsibility for blah blah,' but I assume they are refering to car related accidents and not falling masonry etc.
I think they are referring to vandalism/stolen bags and cars from their car park. You are not paying for or getting a security service when you park.I often see signs stating 'We accept no responsibility for blah blah,' but I assume they are refering to car related accidents and not falling masonry etc.
PAULJ5555 said:
I think they are referring to vandalism/stolen bags and cars from their car park. You are not paying for or getting a security service when you park.
What about if you were paying quite a large sum, for example £80 for parking over 2 hours? Surely for that sort of price you could reasonably expect them to keep your car secure ging84 said:
What about if you were paying quite a large sum, for example £80 for parking over 2 hours? Surely for that sort of price you could reasonably expect them to keep your car secure
You can expect quite a lot for a high price along with your parking- car cleaned, dancing girls, blowjobs, but I don't think that means you have a "right" to get it.
PAULJ5555 said:
4rephill said:
PAULJ5555 said:
randlemarcus said:
Of course not. Landholder trying (badly spelled, but that doesn't matter as the very air shimmers there, judging by the photography) to stop folks walking across (thus the sign being the exact width of the pedestrian bit) without actually fencing the whole thing off.
Only this gap in the hedge has been blocked by the sign, there is a footpath gap either side and also about another 4 open access ways to enter from the other side of the car park - no signs there.But that gap is probably the most natural, direct route to take a short cut across the car park rather than having to walk all the way round.
By blocking this entrance you are already being subconsciously "encouraged" to walk around the car park rather than through it.
I can understand the thinking behind the sign (I suspect the land owner has probably had quite a few people complain of near misses with pedestrians cutting through the car park), but I have to say that I'd be incredibly embarrassed to have such a misspelt sign on My property for all the World to see!
Please tell Me that the car park belongs to a sign writing company! - That would just be unbelievably funny!
Its a medical research facility that rents the building/carpark off the hospital. Lots of clever people in there. The car park is gated to stop patients parking in there and blocking their spaces.
Based on the single photograph you posted, it appeared to be the most natural direct route to get to the other side of the car park without having to walk the whole way round it.
(More photographs would have helped!
)Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff