"Stay back 100 ft"

[Inthacup]

"Stay back 100ft. Not responsible for damaged vehicles"

I scoff whenever I see this sign on the back of a dumptruck, but I'm curious, does it actually prevent lawsuits or relieve them of any legal liability?

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
"Stay back 100ft. Not responsible for damaged vehicles"

I scoff whenever I see this sign on the back of a dumptruck, but I'm curious, does it actually prevent lawsuits or relieve them of any legal liability?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it relieves them of legal liability. Most of the "Not responsible for..." signs you see *anywhere* have absolutely no basis in law.

For instance, a few years ago I was going through a carwash and it somehow pulled my bumper off my car. They had a "Not responsible for damages" sign at the entrance to the carwash. I called my insurance company and they told me to go back to the carwash and ask them to pay for the damages. If they didn't pay for the damages, the insurance company was going to go after them. The insurance agent told me that the gas station is responsible for any damages to vehicles that go through their carwash. They put up the signs so that people don't bother trying to recover damages from them. I went back to the carwash and they told me to get an estimate. No arguments, nothing. They even told me which bodyshop to use. I returned with my estimate and they paid me in cash. Sweet.

[tribefan9]

I had a business law professor explain the situation by saying that wearing a shirt that says, "I am not responsible for any injuries if I punch you in the face" does not mean you can walk around punching people in the face all day.

If only it did . . .

[Bradyams]

What about the sign at gyms, "Not responsible for lost or stolen items"?

[Blarg]

Yup, very few of these warnings mean anything. You can't be forced to give up your rights in most circumstances. Of course, winning in court takes a lot more than actually being right about something. The pursuit of legal action is very often far more expensive than simply taking the loss even if you win.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt it relieves them of legal liability. Most of the "Not responsible for..." signs you see *anywhere* have absolutely no basis in law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo!

Think about it this way: the sign costs maybe $25 to put up, tops. If it prevents even one claim/lawsuit because someone was too timid to challenge it, the sign more than paid for itself.

[DrPublo]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the sign at gyms, "Not responsible for lost or stolen items"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me that the gym could say that you're the one responsible for the lost or stolen item because you either (1) lost it or (2) took your eye off it. In essence it seems like the sign is saying that the gym staff is not going to watch your belonings for you. This is definitely different from the carwash example, where the carwash inflicted the damage to the car.

The Doc

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a business law professor explain the situation by saying that wearing a shirt that says, "I am not responsible for any injuries if I punch you in the face" does not mean you can walk around punching people in the face all day.

If only it did . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an excellent analogy. It's the same deal with signing a waiver when you are about to perform a dangerous activity, such as whitewater rafting, or skydiving, etc... Most of the waivers include exempting themselves from "injuries or death caused due to negligence of their staff". Uh no, if your staff does something stupid that kills or severely injures someone, you can bet that you are going to get sued and lose. Having someone sign a waiver does not give you license to kill.

[Blarg]

Yup.

One of the annoying manifestations of this happens at bookstores, where they make you hand over your bags but then the employees go strolling around the store yapping it up without watching them. Absurd. It even gives the employees carte blanche to steal your stuff when you turn the corner and then point to the sign.

Even more is that it's almost always sexualized, in that they will ask men to give up a bag but not women, and they will also do it on a class basis, not bothering to ask if you're well dressed, but hassling you if you're wearing jeans.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yup.

One of the annoying manifestations of this happens at bookstores, where they make you hand over your bags but then the employees go strolling around the store yapping it up without watching them. Absurd. It even gives the employees carte blanche to steal your stuff when you turn the corner and then point to the sign.

Even more is that it's almost always sexualized, in that they will ask men to give up a bag but not women, and they will also do it on a class basis, not bothering to ask if you're well dressed, but hassling you if you're wearing jeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral of the story: Always dress your girlfriend up nicely before sending her into a bookstore to shoplift.

[Los Feliz Slim]

I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. I think you were being asked to agree to arbitration in case of a dispute.

[Los Feliz Slim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. I think you were being asked to agree to arbitration in case of a dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right...arbitration and litigation being different things. You're correct I wasn't being asked to surrender all my rights, just the right to take them to court. Minutes before I'm about to be operated on, I'm not giving up my rights to anything in case the people doing the operating are negligent.

[WackityWhiz]

What about sporting events where the ticket says "not responsible for injuries caused at the event"? Like if a puck hits you in the head or a tire comes off a car and hurts/kills you.

Does that warning mean anything?

[antidan444]

[ QUOTE ]
What about sporting events where the ticket says "not responsible for injuries caused at the event"? Like if a puck hits you in the head or a tire comes off a car and hurts/kills you.

Does that warning mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is, this falls under the "Act of God" category.

If you park your car in, say, the Walmart parking lot, and some other [censored] leaves their shopping cart out in the middle of the lot, and the wind pushes the cart into your car or the cart rolls downhill into your car, Walmart is not legally liable for the damages.

I think your situation is pretty similar.

(Edited because Walmart doesn't have an 'e' in it ...)

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about sporting events where the ticket says "not responsible for injuries caused at the event"? Like if a puck hits you in the head or a tire comes off a car and hurts/kills you.

Does that warning mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is, this falls under the "Act of God" category.

If you park your car in, say, the Walmart parking lot, and some other [censored] leaves their shopping cart out in the middle of the lot, and the wind pushes the cart into your car or the cart rolls downhill into your car, Walmart is not legally liable for the damages.

I think your situation is pretty similar.

(Edited because Walmart doesn't have an 'e' in it ...)

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The sporting event is an assumption of the risk issue.

Assumption of the risk is merely a defense to a negligence claim. In the case you are describing, it would be for premises liability.

Generally, A commercial property owner (or operator, etc.) has the duty to warn of any risks that it knows or should know of as well as protect patrons from unusually dangerous conditions.

Of course, if the dangers are open and obvious, there is no need to warn.

A defense to a negligence claim arising from a known risk is called assumption of risk. This is applicable and controlling at sporting events. For example, a puck flying into the stands at high speeds, is a known risk of watching a hockey game.

HOWEVER, if a particular aspect of the area is unusually dangerous (or comparably dangerous where the increased risk would not be apparent) the patron (arguably) would not assume the risk. I believe a young girl sued a hockey franchise and arena and either won a judgment or procured settlement. The particular area she was sitting in was considered to be unusally dangerous under the circumstances and thus, the risk of sitting there could not be assumed.

Thus, the basis of the suit is negligence in that the area of the area's design fell below the standard of care and that the owner's failed to warn and protect of those dangers not apparent to the patron. The defense of assumption of the risk does not apply because the patron could not properly appreciate the nature and scope of the risks presented.

2. Shopping carts.

If the positioning of the carts is known to cause property damage, the store has a duty to keep them in a safe place. Wind blowing shopping carts is foreseeable and not considered a force majure.

Again, the patron who's car gets dinged will first have to establish that the store's handling of the carts fell below the standard of care. The store can attempt to argue assumption of the risk, if for example, the patron pulled right up next to the cart and left the car there even though it was a windy day. If the risk was appreciable, arguably, the patron assumed the risk of leaving the care there.

Its all bullshit anyway; make sure you have insurance.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
"Stay back 100ft. Not responsible for damaged vehicles"

I scoff whenever I see this sign on the back of a dumptruck, but I'm curious, does it actually prevent lawsuits or relieve them of any legal liability?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without any kind of express agreement, if a party breaches its duty of care, it can ALWAYS be sued. Thus, if the truck spits a rock at your car and chips the windshield, that company can be sued for its negligence. The sign is either/or both a deterrent (the small amount of damage is usually deterrent enough) or an attempt to claim contributory negligence/assumption of risk in that the car was warned to stay away. This sign would likely have little value in court.

[Voltron87]

ok, heres an example. im kind of freestyling here though, and i dont know much about law relative to law students.

say a school group takes kids on a camping trip. they all have the kids rbing forms home to their parents waiving responsibility, etc. from what i understand, this means that if the kid gets hurt by a falling tree, gets bitten by a spider, or otherwise gets hurt by a natural danger of the wilderness the school is not responsible. but if the counselor tells the kid "oh yeah go swimming in that river i'll be there in a minute", and the river turns out to have a current which drowns the kid and the counselor is off sitting on his ass out of sight, that counselor is responsible.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I had a medical procedure at a private outpatient surgery center and they tried to get me to waive my right to sue in the case of negligence. I thought that was incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it. I think you were being asked to agree to arbitration in case of a dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right...arbitration and litigation being different things. You're correct I wasn't being asked to surrender all my rights, just the right to take them to court. Minutes before I'm about to be operated on, I'm not giving up my rights to anything in case the people doing the operating are negligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what happened when you refused to sign? I find this interesting because there is no law that this surgery center has to accept you as a patient. They do not have to accept you on your terms. Of course, onerous clauses are generally, non-enforceable, but an arbitration clause is not usually considered to be onerous.

Arbitration is usually more efficient as the case is admistered by a case manager from the Arbritrator's office who is usually exeperienced in the types of cases assigned. You can chose whether you want just one arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. You will get a fair shake and it will usually be completed in much less time and cost much less money.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
ok, heres an example. im kind of freestyling here though, and i dont know much about law relative to law students.

say a school group takes kids on a camping trip. they all have the kids rbing forms home to their parents waiving responsibility, etc. from what i understand, this means that if the kid gets hurt by a falling tree, gets bitten by a spider, or otherwise gets hurt by a natural danger of the wilderness the school is not responsible. but if the counselor tells the kid "oh yeah go swimming in that river i'll be there in a minute", and the river turns out to have a current which drowns the kid and the counselor is off sitting on his ass out of sight, that counselor is responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the first aspect is an assumption of the risk.

The second has to do with the negligence of the supervisor, which is not assumed.

[Ray Zee]

what it really means is that in the event of damages they will not take any responsibility. so you are forced to sue to have any chance of collecting from them. it works as a notice to what you can expect. its a good thing to know their intentions so you can act accordingly.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
what it really means is that in the event of damages they will not take any responsibility. so you are forced to sue to have any chance of collecting from them. it works as a notice to what you can expect. its a good thing to know their intentions so you can act accordingly.


[/ QUOTE ]

So true, and yet society is convinced that lawyers are to blame for the problem that everything needs to be litigated these days.

[TheBlueMonster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yup.

One of the annoying manifestations of this happens at bookstores, where they make you hand over your bags but then the employees go strolling around the store yapping it up without watching them. Absurd. It even gives the employees carte blanche to steal your stuff when you turn the corner and then point to the sign.

Even more is that it's almost always sexualized, in that they will ask men to give up a bag but not women, and they will also do it on a class basis, not bothering to ask if you're well dressed, but hassling you if you're wearing jeans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral of the story: Always dress your girlfriend up nicely before sending her into a bookstore to shoplift.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was Winnona Ryder not dressed nicely?