Help!..help!!.help!!

[donnainnj]

nj.......while in a mall parking garage w/ private security directly outside of a high end restaurant, bar,pool hall my car was vandalized...broken window, cut convertable top, scratched paint....is the restaurant or private security company responsible for this. a police report was taken after which the security guard came and said ( and i quote) " oh my bad..i never really come and look down here"...if the secuirty guard is admitting neglagence and there is a private company that is supposed to be looking after the lots shouldnt there also be an insurance company that will cover my damages. is it the restaurant or the security company i should go after?.

 

[Terry7]

Whay does your insurance company say about it ?
If you have coverage ,let them battle it out.

 

[JETX]

Sorry, but the CORRECT answer relies on the following:
1) Did you park the vehicle yourself, or was it valet parked??
2) Did you pay to park, or was it a public lot??

In any case, were there any signs disclaiming liability??? And if you got a parking stub, what does it say as to liability??

And by the way.... I doubt that a real "high-end restaurant" would be part of a pool hall and/or bar.

 

[hexeliebe]

Now I've been in a few high-end restaurants in pretty seedy parts of town......

o.k. I got high and ended up on my rear end...but the food was good.

 

[businessjustice]

contact your insurance company and give them the police report information and the name and information of the private security company & the mall management.

The restaurant would not be liable because I would assume, if it is in the mall, it is a rental property. Unless you car was valet parked by an employee of the restaurant, then you would supply that information as well.

More than likely your insurance company will go after mall management, who will, in turn go after the security company.

If you do not have insurance (for some innane reason) then you would sue the property management, under the assumption they pay the security company.

 

[JETX]

Sorry, 'business', but your post is just as wrong as Terry's.
The KEY to this entire issue is whether there were limitations of liability or not. And the ONLY way to find out is for the writer to answer the questions asked in my post.

Anything else is just pure guesses..... and likely incorrect.

 

[businessjustice]

the day I let some flimsy sign on a mall parking lot or pick up stub at the local cleaners stop me from persuing my right to recovery due to flagrant error on the part of the dim lightbulb that had the sign or ticket printed....

My wife had her car damaged by a flying shopping cart in a grocery store parking lot, the cart recovery kid was trying to wrangle too many and they broke away from his grasp. They had those rediculous signs all over the place. We won $877 in repair of our car.

My daughter had 4 suits ruined by a cleaner. They are known for those clauses, again, full reimbursement.

Those signs and tickets are there to scare the niieve. Let a court decide if they are actually "liable" or not. Chances are, they will be held, at least in part, accountable.

 

[stephenk]

the criminal acts of a third person does not result in negligence against the security company, restaurant, mall, pool hall, etc. unless you can show notice to the above entities that such crimes had been happening and nothing was being done to prevent them.

If you cannot show that the above people made the area more susceptible to the vandalism (lights burnt out, history of vandalism and nothing done, etc), you have no claim of negligence against any of them.

your insurance company should take care of it under your comprehensive coverage.

 

[JETX]

Let see......

"the day I let some flimsy sign on a mall parking lot or pick up stub at the local cleaners stop me from persuing my right to recovery due to flagrant error on the part of the dim lightbulb that had the sign or ticket printed...."
*** No one said that the sign or stub was going to stop you. If applied correctly (and a lot aren't), that flimsy sign or stub CAN limit their legal liability. Your insisting that it can't, is simply incorrect. (BTW, it is spelled 'pursuing')

"My wife had her car damaged by a flying shopping cart in a grocery store parking lot, the cart recovery kid was trying to wrangle too many and they broke away from his grasp. They had those rediculous signs all over the place. We won $877 in repair of our car."
*** A sign limiting liability wouldn't waive liability due to negligence (as in your case). But, I am interested in your claim that you 'won' this compensation. Did you 'win' this in court, or just that they agreed to pay (due their negligence)?

"My daughter had 4 suits ruined by a cleaner. They are known for those clauses, again, full reimbursement."
*** Again, in court, or as a 'good customer relation' decision by the cleaners??

Unless these 'examples' you provide were decided in court, they are NOT based on sound legal precedence.

"Those signs and tickets are there to scare the niieve. Let a court decide if they are actually "liable" or not. Chances are, they will be held, at least in part, accountable."
*** Again, wrong. The court will decide liability based on the specific circumstances. Your assumption that 'chances of accountability' has no relevence in law. (BTW, it is spelled 'naive'.)

 

[businessjustice]

Yes, all won in small claims court

I didn't say it couldn't stop you, I said it shouldn't stop you from trying. So you saying it is "KEY" to the whole thing is wrong. You want the person to think that if there is anything like that she should stop in her tracks? Because that is what you made it sound like.

But I would hope, for this person's sake, her insurance takes care of it anyway and this little back and forth we are having is moot.

and as to spelling errors, #1, pretty petty, #2 my Danish roots catch up to me sometimes. Sue me.

 

[HomeGuru]

Yes, all won in small claims court

I didn't say it couldn't stop you, I said it shouldn't stop you from trying. So you saying it is "KEY" to the whole thing is wrong. You want the person to think that if there is anything like that she should stop in her tracks? Because that is what you made it sound like.

But I would hope, for this person's sake, her insurance takes care of it anyway and this little back and forth we are having is moot.

and as to spelling errors, #1, pretty petty, #2 my Danish roots catch up to me sometimes. Sue me.

**A: ok, BJ.

 

[JETX]

Yep, I've had a Danish.... think it was at a Starbucks. But, I doubt that I let it "catch up to me". Nor, did I use it as an excuse.


Okay, since you seem to support a 'no evidence' type of litigation, what was the basis of your argument in your small claim actions when the store argued their limited liabilty signage??

Also, what evidence did you present, if any, as to the cause of the damage by the cleaners to the suits and manage to overcome their limited liabilty?? Did they have an independent lab evaluate the cause of damage?? What did you claim as the proximate cause?
Come on, you can tell us... can't you??