Thread: liability of company car parks

Hi, I work at a community for disturbed children,set in its own grounds where they live 24/7, its out in the country so a car is essential transport for work. The staff car park has signs saying park at your own risk. A car in the company car park got damaged by a couple of the kids, the organization have said they will not pay for any damage. Could they be liable? they know the kids are disturbed,there is no security at all for the car park, we have no other way of getting there. Any help would be most appriciated
blanoblues

I also would be interested in any knowledge anyone may have on the forum regarding this??

What does the sign actually say - word for word?

The sign at the entrance to the car park says....
all vehicles are parked at the drivers risk,(company) accepts no liabilities for loss or damage. Remove all valuables and lock car

Then, I suggest that if you cannot prove negligence by the company, you have no claim against them.

They will argue that you accepted the risk and they are not liable.

I suspect that they are not liable anyway, but I was hoping that the sign said something like "at owner's risk" - with that, they mean the owner of the vehicle, but it can be read as owner of the car park.

many thanks for all the help,will do as suggested

Blano, sorry to get technical but here goes...
Section 2(1) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (not the 1984 version) covers exclusion clauses (I would argue that for these purposes the sign constitutes an exclusion clause as opposed to a general warning) and gives that the occupier of the land owes the common duty of care to his visitors and can be held responsible for the damage caused by the kids ( is it reasonably foreseeable that disturbed children could cause damage to a car, I would argue yes it is). Your difficulty however, is this, is the grounds of the community public or private. Tesco's, for example is public because, although the building is privately owned, the public would normally have access to the store during trading hours. Don't forget, the public can be the bloke who delivers the bread, the binman. Exclusion clauses can normally only be challenged on public premises, otherwise, I hate to say, I think you are on a hiding to nothing. The other problem is that, by passing the warning/exclusion sign, you are in effect accepting the risk and absolving them of any liability.
It might be worth throwing a letter at the owners quoting some of the above points and see if they cave in, otherwise your best bet is, as Majorclanger says, your insurance company.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, I wish you luck with this one.

Just a second thought, if the kids are disturbed and being allowed to play unsupervised in a car park, it possibly could be argued that the organisation have in fact breached their duty of care to the children by allowing them to play in such a dangerous area!! The duty of care is always much higher to children than to adults, this might be enough to put the wind up the bosses.

firstly a big thanks to all who have taken the trouble to help,thanks.
The land is owned by the company involved, unfortunatly the kids were not playing ,they had run off from the adults supervising them, (keeps you fit i can assure you!! )