2006-11-02 01:19:59 · 9 answers · asked by red dragon 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The display of a disclaimer notice of this kind in respect of injury, damage or loss to any person or property whilst on the premises or making use of the premises, may not have the effect of avoiding liability. This is because under sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977:
"2(1) A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice given to persons generally or to particular persons exclude or restrict his liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.
2(2) In the case of other loss or damage, a person cannot so exclude or restrict his liability for negligence except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness."
2006-11-04 08:04:47 · answer #1 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I put up a sign in my yard that said "Trespassers will be shot on sight." that wouldn't give me the right to shoot someone outside of self-defense. That sign is there to dissuade anyone from suing if their personal property is misplaced or stolen. The real question is: What is the club owner's responsibility for the personal items? If they are checked items, such as coats, purses, etc... and they are later lost or stolen, I would say the club has full responsibility for the loss. If the property is left unattended at a table and get lost or stolen then a lesson is learned, but there is no liability on the part of the club.
2006-11-02 01:38:48 · answer #2 · answered by Kevin B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there is a sign at the entrance of the club to that effect then the club is not liable under UK law. There is caselaw establishing this precedent.
2006-11-02 07:07:34 · answer #3 · answered by LYN W 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a club has a sign stating they are not liable for members' property, they are not liable.
2006-11-02 18:08:44 · answer #4 · answered by SeahawkFan37 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This depends on the state you live in would be my guess. Check with the State statutes. I am sure it is an insurance requirement that they post the signs, but I don't know if it is enforceable.
2006-11-02 01:21:55 · answer #5 · answered by Faith 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably not. It would be necessary to show that there was actual negligence involved in order to establish liability. If they restrict admittance to members only, or guests thereof, showing negligence would be extremely difficult.
2006-11-02 01:24:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the signs again it tells you
2006-11-02 01:28:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the damage and wether it would be fairly expected.
2006-11-02 01:23:19 · answer #8 · answered by budda m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They might be liable, but not lible.
2006-11-02 01:25:18 · answer #9 · answered by j a 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋