Contract Law, case law and statute?

[christos]

If you were in a car park on a regular day, you up take a contract ( via invitation to treat ) to use the facilities in the car park. There are notices in the car park declaring that 'If any damage is caused to customer vehicles, the company, its staff, and agents are not responsible'

My question following the types of law is this: If there is refurbishment work going on in the car park, and there are signs warning that there is work being done, and again the company, employees and agents are not liable. Upon FAILURE to NOTICE these signs, if a brick falls and damages the car, as well as causing facial injuries. Is the company liable? as well as the refurbishing company?

My opinion is that, for the car they are not liable, but the contract doesn't cover the customer.
How much more is there to this?

[siwili]

A posted sign does not a contract make. The signage you refer to is an attempt by the lot owner to disclaim liability for damage to your vehicle caused by other drivers or people in the lot which are not under the lot owner's control. It is a very limited way to avoid liability, and there are several ways to challenge it (depending on where you live/local laws.)

In your example, the laborers working on the parking garage (or the company they are employed by, actually) would be responsible to pay for any repairs to the car...assuming the brick was part of the refurb project. If the brick was part of the existing structure that was going to be repaired (but is not yet being worked on) then it's probably the garage-owner's duty to pay. Either way, you're talking about a negligence action, not a contract claim. The personal injuries would also be covered by one of these parties (depending on which one is liable for the brick falling.)

Failing to notice signs will not change the relative legal positions in your hypothetical.

In the end, someone's insurance company will pay for the damage. This is why businesses have insurance

[ezri]

No, ignorance doe's not make you exempt from the law. If the signs are visible and up to code, and you missed them. Now damages to you can be a different story, unless there are signs that say construction, enter at own risk, etc. Then you cannot do anything.

[otis]

No, ignorance doe's not make you exempt from the law. If the signs are visible and up to code, and you missed them. Now damages to you can be a different story, unless there are signs that say construction, enter at own risk, etc. Then you cannot do anything.

@SteveK is right on target. Just because someone puts up "warning signs" doesn't necessarily excuse them from liability arising from your use of their property. What if you don't understand English? Would that mean that only English-speaking victims were prohibited from suing them? Wouldn't make sense. They have the burden of proving the defense that you "voluntarily assumed the risks", which might limit your claim, but only to the extent the damage or injury arose from the risks of which you were actually aware.

In fact, under the laws of some states, even pointing out the disclaimer and warnings as an attempt to discourage you from filing a complaint would be considered "unfair and deceptive business practices" (a type of fraud), if they know (or should know) that your claim may be upheld in court.

But courts sometimes also have "common sense". If you're told to "watch out for the bricks", and you say, "okay, I got it", and then recklessly wander into the danger zone, that liability is on you, assuming you are an ordinarily prudent person and not mentally challenged, or the like.

Add: Some states have specific statutory immunity for landowners who allow visitors on their property, free of charge, for "recreational purposes", recognizing the inherent dangers and putting the entire burden upon the visitor to take steps for their own personal safety. Even these statutes, however, would not protect a landowner from liability arising from injuries caused by intentionally hurting the visitor. Raises good questions of whether a recreational visitor stepping into a hidden bear trap could sue for injuries. E.g., NH RSA 212:34, which has an exception for "willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity;" Similar in RSA 508:14: "landowner shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage."