Is the owner of a car park liable for a broken lamppost that has damaged my car? If so, what do I do

Rosenkrantz

CliveOfIndia said:

Rosenkrantz said:

Wouldn't the car park owner have a duty of care to keep all objects they own in a good/non-dangerous state?

Not in this situation.  There was nothing inherently dangerous about the lamp-post, and the counter-argument would be that you should have been more observant about your surroundings, drive with due care and attention, that sort of thing.  You hit a stationary object, it's your fault (again, not being nasty, just second-guessing what their insurance would say !).

Rosenkrantz said:

And yes, the car is c. 15 years old. If I do repair it myself, then does that affect the insurance somehow (I've not made a claim but I did report it).

There would be no problems regarding insurance if you repaired it yourself - it's no different to touching up a scratch or a stone-chip with a can of spray paint.  It might be different if the structural integrity of a component had been compromised, but for purely cosmetic damage then you're free to deal with it yourself if you want to.  And if you feel that you don't have the skills/experience to replace the bumper yourself, if you have a local independent mechanic they should be able to fit it for you (they may even be able to source a second-hand one for you if they're really friendly )

Thank you, that is helpful  

boxosox

Hoenir said:

Rosenkrantz said:

Thanks. Wouldn't the car park owner have a duty of care to keep all objects they own in a good/non-dangerous state? Not that I imagine they won't try and argue their way out of this...

Nothing to argue. You hit a stationary object while not following the laid out road marking in the car park. 

I agree about the fact the car was not on the road, but I think the OP is also correct that the owners of the car park have a duty of care to ensure their car park is fit for purpose.

boxosox

saker75 said:

boxosox said:

saker75 said:

I imagine they will have notices around saying they are not liable for losses or damage whilst you are parked there. Whether that is wholly enforceable or not would likely be a matter for the courts. 

Legally, those signs mean nothing.  

In this case, I'd say the OP might have a case.  There doesn't appear to be any warning signs/reflective tape/cones etc.  I'd say the owner of the land has been negligent.

But it also looks like that lamp post is on a part of the car park you shouldn't drive on, so not sure if that would be a defence for them.

"A car park owner cannot in the absence of a special relationship be said to owe a duty of care to prevent the damage or theft of a car parked in its car park. A person who leaves his motor car in a car park cannot assume or assert against the car park proprietor any obligation to use reasonable care to look after the car. Such a car is therefore left in the car park entirely at the owner’s risk unless the car is delivered into the custody of the car park owner for his safekeeping"

https://lival.co/news/posts-2/284-park-at-your-own-risk-who-is-responsible-for-the-damage-to-my-car 

The owners will have a certain duty of care and putting up signs doesn't remove that.

I'm not talking about theft or damage from a car hitting another car or something.  And I'm not suggesting the car park owner should be literally looking after the cars.

But they do need to ensure the car park is fit for its purpose.

If I turned a boggy field into a car park and everyone got stuck, I couldn't just shrug and say "read that sign that says I have no liability".

boxosox

Car_54 said:

saker75 said:

boxosox said:

saker75 said:

I imagine they will have notices around saying they are not liable for losses or damage whilst you are parked there. Whether that is wholly enforceable or not would likely be a matter for the courts. 

Legally, those signs mean nothing.  

In this case, I'd say the OP might have a case.  There doesn't appear to be any warning signs/reflective tape/cones etc.  I'd say the owner of the land has been negligent.

But it also looks like that lamp post is on a part of the car park you shouldn't drive on, so not sure if that would be a defence for them.

"A car park owner cannot in the absence of a special relationship be said to owe a duty of care to prevent the damage or theft of a car parked in its car park. A person who leaves his motor car in a car park cannot assume or assert against the car park proprietor any obligation to use reasonable care to look after the car. Such a car is therefore left in the car park entirely at the owner’s risk unless the car is delivered into the custody of the car park owner for his safekeeping"

https://lival.co/news/posts-2/284-park-at-your-own-risk-who-is-responsible-for-the-damage-to-my-car 

From the link, the quoted text seems to be a summary of the legal position in Jamaica.

So unless the OP's incident occurred in Jamaica (which I doubt), that advice is useless at best and gravely misleading at worst.

Jamaica?  Where have you got that idea?

The Maloco v Littlewoods decision was by the UK House of Lords according to a quick Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Littlewoods_Organisation_Ltd

uknick

boxosox said:

Car_54 said:

saker75 said:

boxosox said:

saker75 said:

I imagine they will have notices around saying they are not liable for losses or damage whilst you are parked there. Whether that is wholly enforceable or not would likely be a matter for the courts. 

Legally, those signs mean nothing.  

In this case, I'd say the OP might have a case.  There doesn't appear to be any warning signs/reflective tape/cones etc.  I'd say the owner of the land has been negligent.

But it also looks like that lamp post is on a part of the car park you shouldn't drive on, so not sure if that would be a defence for them.

"A car park owner cannot in the absence of a special relationship be said to owe a duty of care to prevent the damage or theft of a car parked in its car park. A person who leaves his motor car in a car park cannot assume or assert against the car park proprietor any obligation to use reasonable care to look after the car. Such a car is therefore left in the car park entirely at the owner’s risk unless the car is delivered into the custody of the car park owner for his safekeeping"

https://lival.co/news/posts-2/284-park-at-your-own-risk-who-is-responsible-for-the-damage-to-my-car 

From the link, the quoted text seems to be a summary of the legal position in Jamaica.

So unless the OP's incident occurred in Jamaica (which I doubt), that advice is useless at best and gravely misleading at worst.

Jamaica?  Where have you got that idea?

The Maloco v Littlewoods decision was by the UK House of Lords according to a quick Google.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Littlewoods_Organisation_Ltd

Well, the lawyer's website is in Jamaica.  And the case referenced cites JMSC which is the Supreme Court of Jamaica.  So questioning whether it's a valid case for English Law is a fair point.

I'm not sure how the case you cite relates to leaving your car in a car park as it regards suffering loss as the result of third party actions.  This thread is about two parties; car park owner and a motorist damaging their car in said car park.

sheramber

Rosenkrantz said:

uknick said:

Looking at the picture, is the "block" paving where the lamp post is located meant for driving on?  And, I think you mean "horizontal" to the ground not "perpendicular".  Unless you knocked it down as shown in the picture.

Yes, whoops, I mean horizontal! Someone else knocked it over way before me. I think you're probably right and the block paving isn't meant to be driven on, but the only thing to indicate that would've been.... the lamppost, when it was intact. Otherwise, when it's dark, you can't see the difference.

Do you not have headlights on your car?

theoretica

It doesn't look like a special danger to me - any more so than say a rock or block in the area which is a common enough thing. 

Mildly_Miffed

Rosenkrantz said:

Hi folks, would be grateful for some advice.

I was parked in the car park of a Pets at Home store at around 4:30pm and when I went to pull away, the front of my car went into the end of part of a metal lampost, and the bumper was severely cracked (luckily I wasn't hurt and nothing mechanical was affected). The post was almost perpendicular to the ground (I've attached a photo), and so not visible from inside the car at all, not to mention it was almost dark by that point. The Pets at Home manager told me that the post had been damaged around a year ago by another driver.

Confusingly, the owners of the carpark are Travis Perkins (who no longer have a store there), who I have not yet contacted. I'd like to know if it seems they would be liable for the damage and if so, how could I get them to pay for the repairs, presumably via their public liability insurance (the repairs probably exceed the value of my car, which is why I've not yet made an insurance claim as I don't want them to write it off!). Any suggestions as to the best way to proceed here? Thank you!

Can we clarify what happened, please?

You drove via the carpark's site roadways, heading leftwards from out of shot of the photo into the parking bay just visible in the right of the pic and parked nose-in, facing left?

You got out of your car, went shopping, came back, got back in... then just drove forward out of the bay, over the pedestrian bit visible, towards the roadway out of the car park?

You then reversed away, got out, stared in surprise at the stump of the lamp post, took a photo of it - in the lighting condition that the picture shows?

So when you parked nose-on to the stump, it was clearly visible in better lighting than shown - but you forgot it was there and simply assumed the way in front of your car was clear?

Certainly some raised kerbs would not be a bad idea, but I'd have said that was clearly enough visible to any pedestrians using the pedestrianised area to not be a problem.

Hoenir

boxosox said:

Hoenir said:

Rosenkrantz said:

Thanks. Wouldn't the car park owner have a duty of care to keep all objects they own in a good/non-dangerous state? Not that I imagine they won't try and argue their way out of this...

Nothing to argue. You hit a stationary object while not following the laid out road marking in the car park. 

I agree about the fact the car was not on the road, but I think the OP is also correct that the owners of the car park have a duty of care to ensure their car park is fit for purpose.

I reminded of a comedian Jasper Carrott who has incorporated car insurance claims into his show for the past 40 years. There's some classics. 

The telephone pole was approaching and I was attempting to swerve out of its way when it struck the front end of my car.

Going to work at 7am this morning I drove out of my drive straight into a bus. The bus was 5 minutes early.

I collided with a stationary tree.

Grumpy_chap

Rosenkrantz said:

the repairs probably exceed the value of my car, which is why I've not yet made an insurance claim as I don't want them to write it off!

In that case, whether or not you have a claim against the car park owner / operator may well be moot.

If you had a valid claim against the car park owner / operator, then they will pass the matter to their insurers to resolve.  If the insurers then accept that claim, the insurer will determine the value of the repair as exceeding the value of the car and write it off.

The only way to avoid an insurer writing off the car when the damage repair is more than the value of the car is self-repair or no repair.

FWIW, I don't think there is a claim against the car park owner / operator as an insurer would assess this as being your fault (you drove the car into a stationary object).  The very best an insurer might find is a contributory factor by the car park owner / operator but any such factor is likely to be a small fraction.

How bad is the damage to your car?  Can you just live with it?