Damaged car

KandQ

My wife’s boss hit her car and caused bad damage to front bumper. He’s now saying you park at your own risk . Is this fair .
she’s devastated.

[Deleted User]

If the other party doesn't want to pay directly, she can go through her insurance. She'll need to inform them in any case, so may as well let them deal with it.

lisyloo

No it's not fair.

Jim80

Is the car insured?

Bradden

Where did the accident happen.. privcate land or highway? Are you not insured?

KandQ

Car is insured and it happened on private hospital car park 

Grumpy_chap

KandQ said:

My wife’s boss hit her car and caused bad damage to front bumper. He’s now saying you park at your own risk . Is this fair .
she’s devastated.

Is the boss accepting he did it?
If so, claim on her insurance to chase through the third party (her boss).
May need to request CCTV from the hospital.
It is not fair.  

TELLIT01

I agree it's not fair, but will notices to the effect that vehicles are parked at the owner's risk affect any claim?

Grumpy_chap

TELLIT01 said:

I agree it's not fair, but will notices to the effect that vehicles are parked at the owner's risk affect any claim?

NO.  Negligence cannot be excluded in tort.

Notices of the type you refer to cover the premises against claims for an act by another, for example if your car is stolen from the car park then the premises has not been negligent by not providing security - your car is as secure as it is in the street or any other public place.  (Assuming the premises was not advertising "secure armed guard parking" and failed to provide the armed guard.)

Similarly, if a.n.other (e.g. Grumpy_chappess) drives in and whacks your car while doing a three-point turn to leave, you can still pursue a claim against Grumpy_chappess (the a.n.other).

Simply being the boss does not excuse the negligent driving and normal insurance claim can be bought.  The boss is the a.n.other.

If the car is damaged because of the negligence of the premises owner, e.g. sign about cars parked at owners risk is insecure and blows down damaging a car - the car owner can claim against the premises owner as the sign should have been properly maintained and it was negligent not to maintain the sign in suitable condition.

If the boss is claiming to be the premises owner and hide behind the "owners' risk" signage, then the boss (as premises owner) has still been negligent.

Now, where this all gets unfair is what the cost of the damage is, and if the boss is the type of character and in a position to then make the continued service of the employee impossible.  Obviously, unfair / constructive dismissal would all come into play - but that is al a route no-one wants to be in.

It was not clear whether the boss owns the company / in a very senior position that carries enough weight and teflon to get away with it, or whether the boss is a jumped up junior manager in a large organisation and will be told where to go.

Farside71

It was not clear whether the boss owns the company / in a very senior position that carries enough weight and teflon to get away with it, or whether the boss is a jumped up junior manager in a large organisation and will be told where to go.

It's hard to think of the level at which a manager in our highly regulated company which has just had a culture audit, and has all the necessary whistle blowing functions etc, would not be up on misconduct for this behaviour.  However these are very good points, and at the very least you'd think someone would have a quiet word with him.  

KandQ

Thank you everyone for your advice and comments. Which I have passed on to my wife.

He’s not admitting it but it now seems another nurse has come forward as her red car has been damaged on the door.
on closer inspection low and behold there is also red paint on the bosses car as well.

They are now both demanding a meeting with him.

My wife did say that the other nurses are considering giving the boss a forced enema to get the confession.

Made me laugh bless them