Yes. I have been thinking about this for a very long time. We pay for parking. And very expensive one at it also. In comparison 50 cents for council street parking vs rm2-10 for private parking per.hour. So the question is why pay so much to park a car in private lots when there are no advantages for the high price at all?

How do car operator know if your car are being stolen? It could be you passing your car key to your friend or relative to pick up your car.

so if roadside parking under local council also same?

If this applicable to "Trade At Your Own Risk" term from guru saham......... oh yes

kpdnkk already said before in newspaper; even displaying such term itself is an offence worthy of saman.

Yup the operator cannot hide from the park at your own risk because as an operator they have a duty of care to make sure all car parks at the premise is safe. If you notice Sunway Pyramid install big signboard that they will not responsible for any damages or loss but still they can’t run. Can take them to court.

Since early 90s lg duhhh

Good

DSAI terbaik

It's not recent at all. The ruling has been around like 15 to 20 years ago provided it's a paid parking. Iinm, one of the case was  a mall parking somewhere in KL. Was it imbi plaza, I can't recall. Car owner managed to get compensation for items in his car that was missing together with his car (car got stolen). The car itself is insured so parking lot operator didn't have to compensate the car itself . It was in the news when I was a student. Circa 1995-1999.

Free parking on the other hand yes, parking owner can be exempted from liabilities. I recall years ago got a case where car owner sues Tesco for damages his car suffered while being parked at Tesco parking lot. The court sided with Tesco as the parking area is free for all.

Not just 20 years ago, In fact even longer. "Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - 1971" has become a standard case study for all business law first subject on Contracts where the imposition of "park at your own risk" notice on the ticket is deemed not enforceable because it is a clause after a customer entered the parking area to obtain a ticket.

Not just 20 years ago, In fact even longer. "Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - 1971" has become a standard case study for all business law first subject on Contracts where the imposition of "park at your own risk" notice on the ticket is deemed not enforceable because it is a clause after a customer entered the parking area to obtain a ticket.

Can we sue majlis bandaraya since we paid parking fees?

Usually this is done during the disclosure/discovery phase (pre-trial).

All parties must all the documents that any party intends to rely on or refer to during the trial later.

At that phase... Any contract/agreement between the building/mall/hotel owner with the parking operator should come to light.

What about if they put this notice at the place before the driver take the ticket?

Only those who is willing drag to court

But I am sure most would go to a tribunal 1st to settle before dragging it out to court