\"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

"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?

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

[ 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.

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

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 . . .

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

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

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

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.

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

[ 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.

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

[ 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

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

[ 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.

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

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.

Re: \"Stay back 100 ft\"
 

[ 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.