Just an FYI - If I remember correctly from when I did law as part of accounts - disclaimers are fairly meaningless as there is a duty of care when something is handed over for safekeeping (especially if a fee is charged)
IIRC there was a case that proved this over damaged goods & the owner of the goods sued & won even though a disclaimer saying "goods left at own risk" was on display
I can't remember the case law tho' long time back
No you do, you see there was a court case a few years ago which just reinforced the law. Said that having sign saying that you have no liability is a load of shit. For that to be enforced you'd have to get someone to waive the simple issue of liability with a contract they signed saying.
If someone gives you something, you have a duty of care for that object. If you smash it, then you are liable for damages in respect of that item. If you were working for someone when it happened then they are liable for it. Don't want the liability, don't accept the item.
Someone gives you their 40,000 quid Mercedes to look after, you smash it up, your liable.
Problem with a 40 quid item, you smash it up, say your not paying, its 60 quid for court action and then you have to fuck about so much its cost you another 100 quid in wasted time. Might as well give in before you start.
I'd be interested to see the actual judgement from that court case, as while I agree that the standard 'no liability' sign isn't legal protection from damage/ theft / loss of an item that you could reasonable expect to be covered - such as a bog standard coat in a cloakroom that you still have the ticket for, I'm pretty sure this isn't doesn;t mean there's blanket liability for anything someone leaves however fragile/expensive it is unless they've told you in advance of you accepting payment, and you've agreed to take it and be liable for it (or not state that you'll only take it at the owners risk).
fair enough if someone gives you a £50,000 merc to look after and you smash it you're responsible because it's fucking obvious that it's an expensive car that you've accepted payment to look after.
However if someone bought a £50,000 piece of art, bunged it in a crappy carrier bag & handed it over to a standard club cloakroom without telling them it was fragile & extremely valuable, and then it got damaged, then IMO you'd not have a hope in hell of winning in court.
My understanding of this is that it's about the level of service and liability it would be reasonable to expect as standard for the price & description of the service. Leaving your jacket in the cloakroom and it getting damaged / stolen = reasonable expectation = club liable, leaving a £50k artwork in club cloakroom without telling them what it was and them specifically agreeing to keep it and be liable for it = not reasonable = club not liable.
£40 fragile item is a bit more of a grey area I'd have thought, but I'd not have said it was clear cut either way unless (as it turns out the OP did) you'd made clear that the object was fragile and they'd accepted it on that basis.
sorry to carry this thread on, but we sometimes run our own cloakrooms at clubs who don't run them in house, so if we are really to be liable for anything anyone leaves with us, no matter how stupid, then I could do with knowing upfront as I'll just not run a cloakroom rather than risk the liability... I'm pretty sure that's not the case though otherwise I doubt insurance companies would even allow clubs to even operate a cloakroom as the risk wouldn't be worth the money.
bastard tutor wants us all to fail
