case law

case law

Postby markie b » Sun May 31, 2009 7:18 pm

5 Apr 2000
CA
Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Waller, And Lord Justice May Land, Torts - Other, Road Traffic Casemap
1 Cites
1 Citers
The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods. To avoid an action for damages, the clamper must show that the car parker consented to the clamping. He can do so by showing, in accordance with established principles, that the driver had had his attention brought to the fact that wheel clamping operated, through appropriate notices to that effect. Where, as here, the driver persuaded the court that she had not seen the notices, the clamping remained unlawful. No malice was intended, and no punitive damages could be awarded. "The act of clamping the wheel of another person's car, even when that car is trespassing, is an act of trespass to that other persons property unless it can be shown that the owner of the car has consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of his car being clamped. To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning." The Recorder had held, correctly, that the appellant by parking her car where she did was trespassing. Unhappily, he then jumped to the conclusion that the appellant had consented to, or willingly assumed, the risk of her car being clamped. In making that leap the Recorder fell into error.
Link[s] omitted
when injustice becomes law
rebellion becomes duty
markie b
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:42 am

Re: case law

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Sun May 31, 2009 8:24 pm

This is a find, Markie!!

I note that it is stated the car was parked UNLAWFULLY, not ILLEGALLY and that CONSENT is required - well, whaddya know we were right all this time........ :rotfl:


Good one, matey!
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: case law

Postby jobsaboba » Sun May 31, 2009 8:52 pm

Top marks Markie, Geez where do you find this stuff :clap:
Erm dont answer that :grin:

nice one

Jobs
I am not wise......I am otherwise !

its not my banking system... and i dont take credit for it !!
User avatar
jobsaboba
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:48 am
Location: Hastings, East Sussex

Re: case law

Postby kevin » Sun May 31, 2009 10:31 pm

this is an interesting find, well done, keep it up :shake:
kevin
Newbie
Newbie
 


Return to Wheel Clampers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest