Kereta hilang di parking ofis, boleh saman x?

tigger

Salam suma,

Kereta tigger kena curi kat kawasan parking ofis yg berpagar early last month. Since ada CCTV kat ofis so boleh nampak la keta kena curi.. Masa tu time hujan so guard suma dah x de kat kawasan tu..

My question is, boleh ke saman the parking operator or my company because of negligence?
Btw, the parking is berbayar and kat tiket tu ada tulis "park at yr own risk". Valid ke dia punya disclaimer tu?

amir_70014

Salam suma,

Kereta tigger kena curi kat kawasan parking ofis yg berpagar early last month. Since  ...
tigger Post at 2-2-2011 12:39

Kan ker dah ada tulis ''Park at Your Own Risk''?? Tak boleh kot. Claim insurans tak leh ker?

tigger

Kan ker dah ada tulis ''Park at Your Own Risk''?? Tak boleh kot. Claim insurans tak leh ker?
amir_70014 Post at 2-2-2011 12:55

Sebab tu la tanya samada dia punya disclaimer tu valid ke tak sbb I believe suma parking ticket ada disclaimer mcm tu..

Claim insurance tu memang dah buat tapi soalannya boleh ke nak saman the company or parking operator for kecuaian?
Sapa2 yg arif pasal benda ni tolong bagi penerangan ya..

medangmru

pendapat aku.....boleh cuba saman tapi peratusan nak menang tu teramat tipis... parking owner boleh senyum lebar,,,,dah ada disclaimer...bukan kat parking Opis je...mana2 parking pun...kat hypermarket...shopping kompleks..mmg dah terang2 ada disclaimer ni....

medangmru

nak saman kat tribunal pun...kes kehilangan kenderaan ni pun tak termasuk dalam kategori yang boleh dituntut...

tigger

ye betul.. skrg ni mana2 tempat parking pon akan ada disclaimer ni in which dah jadi trend pulak sbb diaorg won't be held responsible for any loss of other people property masa parking kat situ. Kira lepas tangan la kalau keta hilang, keta kena pecah, etc..

Ingat nak buat tuntutan tribunal gak tapi since bro medang dah ckp camtu so x leh la..

cik_lin

wat per kita bayar mahal2 kat tpt parking tu, tapi ''Park at Your Own Risk''. sbnrnyer tak pahamlah... blh explain tak?

tigger

Yg tigger dapat info from the parking operator, dia kata kita bayar parking space/lot sahaja bukan bayar guard utk jaga our property. That's why ada disclaimer camtu in which I think very unfair to the pengguna. Kita parking kat situ dgn harapan keta kita dijaga dgn baik but apparently they all memang x jaga pon..

kaishi

dah lame sebenarnya aku perhatikan benda ni, geram je aku rasa, "park at your own risk and give your money to us". ni la konsep dia sebenarnya kan???? baik dia tulis mcm tu..

seolah2 mcm menggalakkan kes2 kecurian kereta, yerlah, bile kereta hilang, orang nak saman dah tak boleh, kalau diminta nak tengok cctv pon kadang2 dia cas bayaran dengan macam2 alasan,,,,,,

aku rasa KPDNKK patut amek tindakan benda2 mcm ni, speatutnya, bile dah bayar kat untuk parking, masa yang sama,keselamatn kereta pon terjamin.

bukannya "kau bagi aku duit, kereta kau hilang, kau punya pasa" l

oneders

"park at your own risk" tu bagi ku tak valid selagi kita bayar perkhidmatan tu... kita bayar, letak kereta dan kereta kita hilang didalam kawan mereka. kita boleh ambil tindakan atas apa yang berlaku sebab kita bayar perkhidmatan bukan kita letak free...!!

benda ni macam "once broken, consider sold" kat kedai-kedai... benda ini tidak termaktub dalam undang undang dan kalau berlaku [semasa kita sedang survey barang-barang dalam kedai], kita tak perlu bayar... kecuali, barang yang terpatah tu, kita sudah berniat untuk beli dan dah ambil bawa ke kaunter bayaran atau memang kedai sudah tag [beri amaran] barang tu "fragile".

apa pun, ko cuba rujuk pada lawyer, ambil nasihat diorang tentang niat tindakan ko tu..

medangmru

wat per kita bayar mahal2 kat tpt parking tu, tapi ''Park at Your Own Risk''. sbnrnyer tak pahamlah. ...
cik_lin Post at 2-2-2011 03:47 PM

    jawapan yg mudah Cik Lin....parking owner/operator takmo tanggungjawab ....lepas tangan..

dan509

Cuba check dgn lawyer.  Dah ada 1 kes di mana pemilik kereta yg dicuri menyaman operator car park & menang.  Kes tu tahun lepas ke 2 tahun lalu.  Tapi sebelum tanya lawyer, check background lawyer sebab biasanya lawyer yg pernah mewakili parking operator takkan bagi advise camni.

medangmru

dan pendapat lain ....mebe Parking Owner tetapkan Disclaimer tersebut sebab takmo tanggung risiko kenderaan hilang yang disengajakan.....kete hilang dan Parking owner di salahkan bulat2 .....mungkin kes ni dah banyak berlaku sebelum disclaimer ni dibuat...mebe kalau ada otai2 mungkeng depa leh sahkan ..adakah tempat parking zaman 70 dan 80-an dulu ada dibuat disclaimer sebegini???

jazaa

Mcamana dia blh kuar dari tempat parking tu?....U tinggalkan parking ticket tu kat dalam kereta ke?

tabasco

kalau risiko ditanggung sendiri utk parking kereta,apelah tujuan dorang letak guard?

medangmru

kalau risiko ditanggung sendiri utk parking kereta,apelah tujuan dorang letak guard?
tabasco Post at 3-2-2011 09:56 PM

sekadar cukupkan syarat je kot yang parking operator tu nak tunjukkan pada car owner yg parking dia selamat...:re:

philipinoe2

utk kes negligence mcm ni, owner premis/vehicle/goods/service bley letak mcm2 disclaimer ikut sukati mak bapak derang..dan sepatutnyer pabile customer/client tawu psl disclaimer tu dan still nk gune/amek/beli service/goods tu, derang terikat dgn disclaimer tu..tu general rule..

TAPI, ade exception...contoh mcm kes ni..

perkhidmatan parking berbayar, ade guard/sekuriti yg patutnyer jage keselamatan vehicle dlm compound/area premis/opis..

utk majikan/employer gune disclaimer " PARK AT YOUR OWN RISK", 1st die kene makesure premis yg disediakan utk perkhidmatan parking berbayar tu adelah reasonably/under normal circumstances selamat utk di parking..

adekah fakta majikan sediakan pakgad (in house/hired) yg TIDAK  BERADA DALAM KAWASAN PARKING KETIKA KEJADIAN adelah sesuatu yg normal?..

lainla kalu ko parking keter mmg dah lock, pastu ade pencurik g pecahmasok keter ko dlm area ofis, pakgad sedar, pakgad kejar/cuba halang, tp pencurik tu nekad g rempuh pagar sekuriti gad tu...kalu mcm ni situasi die, 'mebi' disclaimer " PARK AT YOUR OWN RISK" applied...

g jumpe loyer practise general litigation tanye 2nd opinion...

tigger

tq atas nasihat suma.. insyallah sy akan tanya lawyer macam mana coz skrg ni aku memang stress sangat.. bukan stress xde keta tapi stress ngan company aku punya attitude.. diaorg buat mcm x pedulik jer pasal keta aku hilang.. x de la nak tolong aku bagi pinjam keta kompani ke or compensation money ke.. aku bukan la mintak benda2 mcm ni tapi at least prihatin la skit kat aku yg ilang keta kat kawasan opis..

utk pengetahuan suma, kawasan parking opis aku ni sgt limited.. yg dpt parking rerserve kat dalam bangunan tu memang selamat la sbb pakai boom gate yg kalau nak keluar masuk pakai card. Yg aku ni x dpt reserve parking so kena parking kat area luar bangunan yg berpagar la jugak tapi x de boom gate pakai card tu.. kira sesapa keluar masuk kat situ memang xde sapa pon tau dia staff or not.. tu yg buat aku marah tu sbb boleh letak disclaimer camtu walhal tempat parking reserve limited.. kalau aku x parking situ, nak parking kat mana pulak? kat tepi jalan?

anyway, aku akan cuba tanya kengkawan lawyer aku pasal bendalah ni..

jfq

Saturday April 25, 2009
‘Park at own risk’ sign no shield from liability
By PRISCILLA DIELENBERG


GEORGE TOWN: A “Park at your own risk” sign does not excuse an operator from being liable for items stolen from cars parked in the area under his care.

Yesterday, a magistrates court here ordered a car park operator to pay lawyer John Heah Wee Theng RM1,668 for items stolen from his car parked at an open air car park near Komtar two years ago.

The items included a compact disc and cassette player with a CD of a compilation of Neil Diamond’s songs, an amplifier, and a pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses.

In his statement of claim filed against Timur Car Park Sdn Bhd, Heah said the notice board at the entrance to the car park stating that the defendant was not responsible for any loss or damage did not absolve the defendant from its duty of care and from liability.

In its defence, Timur Car Park argued that the notice board at the entrance meant Heah had clear knowledge that he was parking his car at his own risk.

The company added that it only provided a parking facility for the public and not a security service to prevent theft or trespass, and did not have duty of care.

It said Heah could have failed to lock his car and activate the alarm system, or failed to ensure that the alarm system and the locks of the car doors were all functioning well.

Heah said he parked his Kenari at the former open air car park next to the Traders Hotel at about 8.30pm on Oct 20, 2007.

When he returned to his car at about 9.40pm, he found the door on the driver’s side unlocked and the items missing.

He said he paid RM2.40 to the company as parking charges for the duration, and the company had a duty of care to watch over the vehicles parked in the car park.

Heah said he parked in a bright spot near a lamppost, adding that there were only 50 to 60 cars there at the time when the car park had a capacity for about 250 to 300 cars. He also said one or two of the car park’s workers were patrolling the area on motorcycle.

Magistrate Mohamed Aznin Mohamed Ariff allowed Heah’s claim for the sum, with interest and costs.

Heah was represented by Tan Beng Hong while Su Tiam Leong appeared for Timur Car Park.

In October 2007, the car park ceased operations and piling works began at the site for the construction of the 11-storey 1st Avenue Penang shopping complex which is scheduled for completion later this year.

========
boleh try saman

tigger

tq bro jfq.. good information nanti nak cuba tanya sama lawyer pulak..