Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Liability poser when handing over car to mechanic

views
     
SUSDrifter
post Aug 10 2007, 09:43 AM, updated 19y ago

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,349 posts

Joined: Jan 2005


i dun really understd, does this mean if they(mech, car jockey, etc) clearly show me, they are off the liability?



Liability poser when handing over car to mechanic, jockey

By SHAILA KOSHY

KUALA LUMPUR: If you hand over your car keys to the mechanic, service centre, car wash or hotel car jockey, do not assume you can make a claim in the event of theft and damage.

A disclaimer clause that is clearly visible and not hidden in fine print could absolve them of any liability.

However, you could sue for negligence if the disclaimer was not clearly visible and not brought to your attention before you handed over the car, said lawyers yesterday.

"The moment you give your car to the mechanic, he becomes the bailee and cannot take it for a joyride," said Mah Weng Kwai.

"The same applies for valet parking at hotels," added Ragunath Kesavan.

"Good hotels often have a disclaimer clause but for it to be effective, if it is not clearly visible, it must be brought to the notice of the guest before the car is handed over."

"If that is done, the disclaimer becomes a good waiver of liability," said Mah.

They said this yesterday when asked about liability for damage and loss in the accident along Jalan Tun Razak involving a Porsche that a workshop foreman had taken for a joyride and crashed, killing one of the friends he had taken along, in the 12.30am incident on Wednesday.

Amer Hamzah Arshad said that having insurance did not preclude a car owner from suing a workshop or hotel for negligence.

Apart from the fact that most vehicle insurance policies have an excess clause, Mah said an owner who did not want to lose his/her no-claim bonus might decide it was better to sue.

"However, the quantum that you can get will be apportioned to prevent double compensation," said Amer.

Asked whether car owners had an obligation to ask their mechanics or hotel staff whether there was a disclaimer clause if they did not see one, Mah said, "No, you must tell me. It is not reasonable for me to ask.

"The moment a car is given to a workshop, the principle of bailment applies and they must take care."

In February 2004, it was reported that a hotel here had agreed to pay for repairs to a guest's car that had been broken into while it was parked in its car park.

The car doors were smashed and locks damaged, and the guest's golf bag and clothes, worth RM1,500, were stolen.

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?f...5886&sec=nation
SUSDrifter
post Aug 10 2007, 11:18 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,349 posts

Joined: Jan 2005


QUOTE(tester1979 @ Aug 10 2007, 10:47 AM)
that is right.....but got limit la....showing the clause to you means that if anything happens while your car is in their premisis excludes then from liability but that does not include them taking your car for joyride or misuse your car........valet parking means parking the car for you.  not taking the car to go mamak with friends......same as workshop.......they are still liable if they take your car for a ride other than the purpose of determining the problem with your car of checking to see if there is still other problem after they fix it........

best is.....stay with your car.......
*
ok, mean if normal things can exclude liability

if go joyride, etc, can sue them, rt
SUSDrifter
post Aug 10 2007, 12:14 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,349 posts

Joined: Jan 2005


QUOTE(Gouki @ Aug 10 2007, 11:30 AM)
Not really though, in the article TS posted oso says that if they didnt show signs like "park at your own risk" or etc to you before you hand the car to them, its still their liability. Moreover, in the agreement act, once they collect parking fees from you when you park your car in a parking premisis, a mutual agreement occur that they are liable unless the parking is free. Just look at the Canny Ong case, the parking company is liable for the case too even they have a big "park at ur own risk" sign upon the parking entrance. smile.gif
*
liable for canny ong? wat is the out come?
SUSDrifter
post Aug 10 2007, 03:28 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,349 posts

Joined: Jan 2005


QUOTE
isclaimers are contractual in nature. And are valid , contractually.

but if there is negligence (a tort) , then its actionable , entirely separate from any contractual issues.

hence , the usual "Park At Your Own Risk" is valid , contractually. Ie , you're at liberty to read the sign , and decide NOT to park there. Its your choice. If you , nonetheless , park , don't b**** about how unfair the sign is.

but , if you parked at , say , Concord. It rained. And you car drowned. Contractually , the hotel may indeed refer to the sign that says "Park at your own risk" and "Flood Zone" , and claim that they're not liable. But if you're able to prove that there was negligence (eg , prior knowledge of predisposition to flooding , failure to inform owners , failure to tow cars out of the flood areas , hotel's ability to remove hotel's own cars but not customers' cars , stuff like that) , then you can still claim/sue them.

there have been a large number of prior cases like these. One that comes to mind is the one about the car on the shop-lift which rolled off the lift (!).

oh yeah , the Tribunal Pengguna is damn-kow-good. Very biased towards the consumer. If you're the shop , mati lah for you.
from a lawyer
SUSDrifter
post Aug 10 2007, 04:44 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,349 posts

Joined: Jan 2005


QUOTE(alasta00 @ Aug 10 2007, 04:23 PM)
reminds me of yesterday's case where a porshe was taken for a joyride by a mechanic n crashed it. It's now like a scraped metal.
*
this case is abt that

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0151sec    0.12    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 05:49 PM