Bar height in parking lots

[spawn_x]

What is the name of your state? California

What are the laws concerning the height of the bars that hang in parking lot that specify what clearance is inside the parking lot?

My question is, does the bar have to be at specifically the minimum clearance, lower, higher, or at least at the minimum or higher?

Thanks.

 

[hexeliebe]

If I own the parking lot they would be 4 foot high to keep all those damn suvs out.

There is no maximum nor minimum. This is a matter to be set by the parking lot owner, even if it's a municipality.

 

[spawn_x]

my question is though, lets say the bar states the clearance is 6'6, does the bar have to be specifically at 6'6? or does it have to be higher?

It would be great if you could point me to the actual law that talks about that, I wasn't able to come up with anything..

Thanks

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

my question is though, lets say the bar states the clearance is 6'6, does the bar have to be specifically at 6'6? or does it have to be higher?

It would be great if you could point me to the actual law that talks about that, I wasn't able to come up with anything..

Thanks

My response:

There is no law, per se, concerning these "bar height guages" that property owners install on their parking lot entrances. It's merely a guage for you, the driver, to use so you don't do damage to the overhead of the parking facilities - - not whether you do damage to your car. Their interest is with their parking structure - - not your vehicle.

However, you're actually protected by the general law of "negligence" if their property; i.e., the bar guage, is incorrect and you're damaged as the result. You have a right to depend upon all warnings and signs that a property owner installs.

I would suggest that you read California Civil Code section 1714, which states - -

1714. (a) Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his
or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by
his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or
her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully
or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or
herself. The design, distribution, or marketing of firearms and
ammunition is not exempt from the duty to use ordinary care and skill
that is required by this section. The extent of liability in these
cases is defined by the Title on Compensatory Relief.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the holdings
in cases such as Vesely v. Sager (5 Cal.3d 153), Bernhard v. Harrah's
Club (16 Cal.3d 313), and Coulter v. Superior Court (21 Cal.3d 144)
and to reinstate the prior judicial interpretation of this section as
it relates to proximate cause for injuries incurred as a result of
furnishing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, namely that
the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of
injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of
alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon
another by an intoxicated person.
(c) No social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person
shall be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that
person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any
third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.


IAAL

 

[spawn_x]

the issue at hand is the bar being raised too high, not too low. Basically it states that clearance is 6'6 but the bar is at 6'8 - 7', thus giving the person a wrong "reading" and sense of security as they pass until they come to a point where its really 6'6 and damage occurs to their vehicle.

my opinion on this is that the parking lot structure owner would not be found liable if a lawsuit was to occur because the height was clearly states at 6'6, and as long as it is never below 6'6 he is not liable.

I looked through that section but could not come up with much that would directly relate to this, it seems as if it would simply depend on the judge but I am trying to find some solid facts (or a previous case maybe?) to base my opinion on.

Thanks.