All Vehicles are Parked at Owner's Risk- Analysing It Effects on Motorist

"All Vehicles are parked at owner's risk" is an inscription that has become a norm in most car parks.

Imagine buying your dream car and on deciding to move around a little, you reach your destination and the next thing is seeing such a signage!!!!! Worse is maybe the car gets stolen and the manager of the hotel or bank denies liability on the basis of the inscription on the symbol. Don't forget this is a brand new car, and hey you went there has a consumer to patronise the hotel or bank. "How would you feel?"

THE LEGAL MEANING OF THE SIGNAGE
Now let's flex our law books small!!
This signage in law is known as Caveat Emptor, it serves as a means of exonerating the hotels, bank, etc for the liability arising from the negligence of their gatekeepers in the event that parked cars are stolen within their premises.
First, in law the act of you parking your car at such premises is called bailment and bailment can simply be said to mean the act of a person called the bailor transferring his possessory right in his goods to another person called the bailee for safe keeping, maintenance, carriage or repairs. The bailee is under an obligation to return same at the appointed period or ensure that the said good is recoverable by the bailor in good condition.
Now in such cases, the law guiding this areas includes the law of Negligence, Bailment, Contract, etc. Now what does the law say about this signage?

WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE LAW HERE
(Please oo , this is not the normal negligence in English Language)
Negligence is one area of law that is very difficult to prove. Negligence connotes an omission or failure to do something which a reasonable man, under same circumstances would do or doing something which a reasonable man would not do. This was held in Odinake v Moghalu
One day I said to a friend that he did not act as a reasonable man and he said "are you insulting me?"  Lollll. I spent three hours explaining myself. But I will break it down for easy understanding.

Who then is a reasonable man capable of committing Negligence? In U.I.T.H v Adegunde, it was said that a reasonable man mean a person who acts sensibly, does things diligently and takes proper but not excessive precaution.
From these, three elements make up Negligence:
There is a duty of care
The duty was breached
The victim suffered damages
In the case of the car owner, he must prove these three elements exist before he can win a case. As simple as they seem, these elements can be the most difficult thing one can ever prove because of the rules and technicalities guiding it.

What has the court said about this matter?
It is on this basis that the court gave judgement in IMO Concord Hotel Ltd v Justice Kalu Anyah. Here Justice Kalu had gone to Owerri for a book launch and went to Imo Concord Hotel Ltd and booked accommodation for a night. At the gate of the hotel, the security at the gate registered the number plate of Kalu and issued him with a plastic disc number 2. Kalu drove in and parked his car, the next day when he checkout of the hotel , on reaching the parking lot, his car was gone!! He sued the Hotel for the value of the car. The court gave judgement for the hotel. That is the court held that the hotel is not liable because Kalu did not prove that the car was stolen, that is he failed in proving the three elements of Negligence. (Remember when I said it's so difficult to prove).

WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A CASE LIKE THIS WILL BE SUCCESSFUL
This is almost an impossible burden to prove by the motorist. However where ever there is a law, there is an exception.
The exception to this ridiculous rule and a condition for liability of hotel proprietors, bank mangers, etc was laid in the same case.

To break down the conditions, we say for a motorist to win a case of lost of vehicle in parking lots, the following must be kept. He must:

• Collect the metal/plastic disc at the gate of the hotel
• Park his car within the premises of the hotel
• Notify the security men where the car is parked and
• Hand over the key of the car to the security person on duty.

Where these conditions are met, then the manager of any hotel, bank , etc can not disclaim liability on the basis of "cars parked at owner's risk".

WHAT THEN IS THE REASON FOR THIS CONDITIONS
The rationale given for this is that the hotel itself has its own properties to protect and cannot be said to owe duty of care to motorist or car owners owing to the presence of security men in its premises.
Accordingly, the hotel disc is only to enable the institutions to regulate the number of cars in their premises at any time and if the discs are exhausted, no vehicle are allowed in as that indicates that no more parking spaces are available.
So next time when you go out parking your cars, you know what to do !!!

Do you agree with this position? Or should it be improve to protect the motorist more. Share your thoughts in the comment section.

Wish to read more of things like this, Subscribe to my blog and get more interesting write ups. Just scroll down and subcribe!!!!. It's free