Property Owners Should Be Held Liable for Negligence
Written by Daniel Okonkwo for Profile International Human Rights Advocate
Disclaimers like “Cars Parked at Owners’ Risk” and “Phones Charged at Owners’ Risk” are frequently displayed in public spaces—hotels, malls, and local shops. These statements aim to exempt businesses from liability should customers' property be lost or damaged on their premises. However, such disclaimers are not always legally binding in Nigeria. Under the principles of negligence and vicarious liability, property owners should indeed be accountable for customers' belongings when reasonable security measures are expected.
This article explores why disclaimers do not waive property owners' responsibility and argues that establishments should compensate individuals for losses or damages caused by their negligence.
When customers enter a public space—a pharmacy, hotel, or shopping mall—they enter an implied agreement with the establishment, expecting their safety and the security of their belongings. For instance, if a pharmacy posts a disclaimer about charging phones “at the owner’s risk” but a phone is lost or stolen due to inadequate security, the pharmacy may still face liability. Customers can legitimately report such cases to the authorities, who may hold the establishment accountable if resolution efforts fail.
Principles of strict and vicarious liability reinforce that institutions are accountable for their actions, regardless of disclaimers. Strict liability holds businesses responsible for actions that directly impact customers, while vicarious liability holds property owners accountable for employees' actions within their duties. These principles highlight that disclaimers alone cannot shield establishments from their duty to protect customers and their property from foreseeable harm.
The principle of negligence arises when an individual or organization fails to act with the care expected in similar circumstances. As established in Diamond Bank Ltd. v. P.I.C. Ltd. (2009), negligence results from a breach of duty causing harm. A “reasonable person” is expected to act with diligence and caution.
For example, a hotel must provide security for its parking lot when guests entrust their vehicles to it. If a car is stolen from the hotel's lot, the disclaimer “park at your own risk” may not hold, as the hotel’s duty of care requires reasonable security. If an establishment fails to meet these elements—duty of care, breach of duty, and resulting damage—the customer may seek damages. In cases where a car is stolen due to inadequate security, the hotel’s liability stands despite any disclaimers.
The principle of vicarious liability holds businesses responsible for employees' actions within their duties. For instance, if a hotel’s security guard fails to prevent a theft due to negligence, the hotel could be held liable. In Anyah v. Imo Concord Hotels Ltd. (2002), the court underlines a hotel’s duty of care for a guest’s property, with security measures and staff involvement deemed reasonable.
Disclaimers cannot override liability in such cases. While they may serve as warnings, disclaimers do not eliminate the property owner’s duty to ensure the safety of patrons’ belongings. The court may view such disclaimers as inadequate if establishments have not implemented proper security.
Establishments charging for parking services but displaying “park at your own risk” disclaimers face heightened liability expectations. By collecting fees, these facilities form an implied contract obliging them to provide a secure environment. Disclaimers in such scenarios appear particularly flawed, as the exchange of money creates an expectation of safe parking.
If disclaimers could waive liability entirely, consumer protection would be severely compromised. Customers would have no recourse for property loss or damage on business premises, undermining public trust. Disclaimers should not replace due diligence nor excuse negligence. When businesses welcome patrons with personal items, they imply a responsibility to protect those items.
Additionally, disclaimers should meet a reasonableness standard to be enforceable. Notices that seek to waive responsibility for foreseeable risks are inherently unreasonable. A facility displaying “park at your own risk” but lacking security essentially asks customers to bear all risks without fulfilling its responsibilities.
Disclaimers alone do not absolve property owners from responsibility. Given negligence and vicarious liability doctrines, disclaimers do not protect businesses from accountability. Customers deserve a duty of care in establishments, and disclaimers should not undermine this.
For individuals who experience property loss or damage on a business premise, legal recourse is available. Disclaimers do not provide absolute protection, and the courts remain the ultimate authority in disputes of this nature. As consumers, we must recognize that every social action has a legal interpretation. The language of disclaimers should not deter individuals from seeking justice.
 |
Comments