Is the sign on the back of some dump trucks stating "Not responsible for broken windshields" legally binding

Question

Is it legally binding? I never agreed to it. Same goes with, "Not responsibile for damage to vehicles" in parking lots. The signs are few and far between, and usually you do not even see them.

Answer 1

very much so....

Answer 2

Notes are not legally binding, contracts are. The case (assuming you are not a troll, which I suspect) is strikingly similar to the famous case of Lucy v. Zehmer that is included in all first year contract law books. Long story short, two people are drinking heavily at a bar. As a "joke," one writes a contract to sell his farm to the other for some sum of money and signs it. The court held the contract enforceable. Voluntary drunkenness is not a defense to an otherwise valid contract. The will provision won't stand because the document needs to be motorized and executed with an impartial witness (most states have "Dead Man Acts" which will prevent you from testifying to the revocation or creation of a will in which you have an interest). Your lawyer was at hooters.....right.

Answer 3

On dump trucks it is just a way to get people to not even try. They are responsible if something from their load falls off and damages your car.

In Parking lots it depends on the damage. Generally they are not liable if someone else breaks into your car but it would really depend on the circumstances.

These are really not the same thing in the eyes of the law. Trucks should be safe when they travel public roads. If you choose to put your car in a private lot you bare some degree of responsibility.

Answer 4

I think the only legally binding sign on a dump truck is-
"If you can read this, then you're in deep dodo!" lmao

Signs are signs, not law. The problem with a dump truck is stopping them to file a claim. Having done it, I can say they don't like it. Too bad.

Answer 5

The one on the back of the truck basically means "I don't have insurance so you're going to have to sue me" but they're still responsible, at least in every jurisdiction I know about.

The one in the parking lot though means what it says, except that in the case of a grocery store, they would still be responsible if an employee does the damage. For example, say a Cart-Retrieval Engineer smashed one into your car, that would still be their fault. But if I smashed one into your car, or the wind caught it, that's not their responsibility.

Answer 6

Nope, dump trucks are still responsible. Parking lots are different because they are private property.


And......many trucks are not equiped with mudflaps which are supposed to stop that from happening and required in most states.

So if a rock flies up from the SUV in front of you not much you can do, but a dump truck that does meet state regulations, i.e. no mudflaps, you do.

Answer 7

I don't think I could go around with a t-shirt that says "Not responsible for black eyes, bloody broken noses or kicked groins." and get away with beating people up.

How would this be any different?

I can't imagine that what you have listed would actually be legally binding.

Answer 8

No. You can't unilaterally bind someone to a contract. There's no "meeting of the minds."

Running them down and getting them to pay for any damages in real life is another matter entirely.

Answer 9

Depends on the state...Here in VA the driver is responsible for his load so if he fails to cover it or it comes off his truck he and or his company is responsible by law.. Check your local motor vehicle code to see.

Answer 10

So if a sign says "Car will be towed at owner's expense." this is not legally binding either? Hate to tell you but warning signs are legally binding!

Answer 11

Yes, any insurance agent will tell you that a rock flying from another vehicle is considered "an act of God". I wish it were different, but that's the way it is.