Apr 29 2023, 12:27 AM
QUOTE(tupai @ Apr 28 2023, 07:31 PM)
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.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.
This post has been edited by andrewhtf: Apr 29 2023, 12:29 AM
Quote
0.0193sec
0.67
6 queries
GZIP Disabled