Ducati Sporting Club UK > General > Idle Chat > A legal liability question

[chicken]

yes - because the theft was captured on the garage's CCTV (but picture quality was too poor to identify the individuals)! I'm not that bothered about the gearknob or the ashtray that was stolen - but I am about the hardtop as these are quite expensive...

The main issue that I have is that the garage is apparantly able to absolve itself of liability because they say they have signs up that say they are not responsible. I don't actually remember seeing where these signs are so I have to go back (or send a friend there) to take some pictures to see whether they pass any kind of reasonableness test.

But even if the signs were thrust in my face when I entered the premises does that mean they are not liable? My insurance company says that they have not won any cases in this kind of situation so are not going to take it any further unless I choose to claim on my own insurance.

I would like to research if there are any legal precedents for this before I have to dig in my own pocket for solicitors - it's now a point of principle!

[NBs996]

Chi, there's a difference between parking outside the shop to go in and buy something, and leaving your car in their charge.
I'd take it further, but you might want to ask a professional first!

[chicken]

just re-read my original message and it may give the wrong impression.

I am not trying to imply that the garage or its staff stole parts off my car. The garage is not disputing that a crime took place (the police came to investigate) but they are saying they are not liable for the damage because they have signs up to that effect.

I'm getting a lot of comments saying that the garage is/should be liable but it would be handy to have a comment from someone with a legal background.

[rockhopper]

I'm fairly certain there is case law to back up your claim. Something to do with a hotel keeping valuables in their safe and denying responsibilty when they got stolen. I'm almost 100% certain that you would win but you need to take advice from a solicitor.

[rcgbob44]

I read a case recently about a motorcyclist who took his machine to a shop for a service and while it was there care, but parked in the road, it was stollen.

The shop denied any liability & refused to cough up!

[Ains.]

If your insurance are dithering and you've got breakdown with legal cover, give them a ring.
They're likely to be a bit more impartial as your insurance see more paperwork and a claim could mean more dosh for them.
Failing that try CAB (Citizens Advice Beaureau (spelling?)).

Have to agree the garage have a duty of care, I mean if the car had been bashed they would have to pay up to fix it. So what's the difference with theft?

Ains.

[Annette]

Chi - when I had my garage, it was my responsibility whilst my guys were working on the vehicle, regardless of whether it was on the premises or parked up outside. However, once the work was finished and the client had been advised it was ready for collection, if we parked it out on the street the liability would become the customers. If we had room to store it inside, it became our responsibility. The RMI were a great source of legal info, but I think you have to be a member. I'm with the 'Ains' if you have legal cover on your insurance, it doesn't hurt to use it. Good luck!! See you Sunday.

[Guido]

Chi,

Do a Google search for RMI or SMMT.

They're the 'bodies' that cover most of the garages in the UK

done a quick search for you ut you may find more help with a more detailed sift thru the SMMT site

http://www.smmt.co.uk/consumeraffair...N=57734660#254

In my view they're liable but as already stated you need a consumer specialised brief to look at it for you or go to the Citizens Advice as that free.

[jeff st4s]

Just spoken to Magistrate friend of mine.
He says if they have not shown a reasonable duty of care to look after your property then they are liable, they can put up any number of exclusion notices they want.
If the property was heavily defended and lots of security measures were in place, then they have tried to look after your property, if they left it out on a road/forcourt then they have not.

[chicken]

Originally Posted by jeff st4s

Just spoken to Magistrate friend of mine.
He says if they have not shown a reasonable duty of care to look after your property then they are liable, they can put up any number of exclusion notices they want.
If the property was heavily defended and lots of security measures were in place, then they have tried to look after your property, if they left it out on a road/forcourt then they have not.

thanks guys.

The car was left in their car park (along with the cars that they sell) which has a fairly high fence all the way around the perimeter and a locked gate. The thieves climbed over the fence, stole the hardtop and passed it over the fence.

The garage deals exclusively in my type of car and they know that the hard tops are targetted by thieves. There is a workshop that my car could have been left in overnight if they had wanted to but I have no idea whether it was full of other cars or not.

Would that constitute reasonable duty of care? Who decides whether it is or not?