Jack Reardon recently bought a vintage ‘67 Mustang convertible, and did not have insurance. Upon arriving at the Holiday Hilton, Bob, a bellboy who was temporarily relieving the valet, Bob gave Mr. Reardon a claim check and took off. Printed on the back of the claim check were the following terms and conditions: “Neither the Safeway Parking Garage no the Holiday Hilton is responsible for any loss incurred because of theft.” Mr. Reardon did not look at the claim check. When he went to get his car. The valet told Mr. Reardon that the car was not in the garage. Mr. Reardon informed the valet that he had $60,000 in the trunk.
Whether the Holiday Hilton is responsible for the lost car and belongings?
Whether there is any relationship that Mr Jack Reardon might be able to recover the damages for his lost “STANG” and belongings?
2006-12-06 07:12:33 · 5 answers · asked by Baby Bear 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Bob was working for the Hilton, yes? If so, Jack handed his keys to employee of the Hilton with the belief that the employee was parking the car. The employee stole the car, so the Hilton is responsible.
The print on the back of the claim check includes the invisible words "within reason." That is to say, they are not responsible for thefts as long as there were not obviously and grossly negligent.
Plus, if the valet worked for the Hilton and the stub was for the Safeway garage the garage is not an issue. The car was not stolen at the Safeway, it never made it there.
As for the money, I hope Jack can prove he left it in the car.
Jack should have activated his lo-jack system and found the car by now. If not, the police should be able to recover it quickly as they know the person who stole it.
If it is unrecoverable, the Hilton owes Jack a car. If he can PROVE the money was in the trunk (unlikely) they should owe him for that, too.
The Hilton may very well agree to pay for the car plus a bit more if Jack agrees not to publicly sue them and expose their shoddy employment practices which could frighten away affluent customers.
If Jack cannot recover the $60,000, then that's a life lesson for him. It was reckless of him to leave it in the car and unreasonable to expect leaving that kind of cash in a parking garage was safe.
2006-12-06 07:28:26 · answer #1 · answered by bookmom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way to prove what was in the trunk. Whether Reardon read the disclaimer or not is his fault, not the companies.
It is implicitly understood that valets/hotels/parking garages are not responsible for the condition/return of your car.
A good lawyer could probably get Reardon something, but it will be a fight.
2006-12-06 15:16:53 · answer #2 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No and no. Whether or not he read the agreement it is still there. By accepting the ticket he accepts the agreement printed on the back. Not having insurance means that nothing in the vehicle or the vehicle itself can be claimed and therefore he is quite simply S.O.L.
2006-12-06 15:24:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
$60,000 in trunk! did u guys rob the bank? .... what was he doing with that money in trunk? 1st of all u shouldn't give that car to someone to park if there was a lot of cash. 2nd if he can have that much in cash, i m sure he can afford insurance ..... y didn't bought one?
sorry, but i don't think holiday inn or valley parking company will pay a dime.
2006-12-06 15:23:52 · answer #4 · answered by Ted 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that is a disclaimer that all parking svcs. give you .
yes he has a case, tell him to find a lawyer asap
2006-12-06 15:22:55 · answer #5 · answered by feelinliketanto 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋