The university had a policy of offering parking lots to staff that lived more than ten miles away from the university. They also offer the lots on a first come first served basis. The university had a security notice warning motorist that the university will not take responsibility for any death, personal injury, and damage to vehicles. In addition, the notice added that the university would not be responsible for theft due to an act or of its employees or any cause whatsoever. This notice bound all those people who would wish to park their vehicles within the university premises. It is a notice meant to caution motorists of all the imminent dangers that would befall them in case of vandalism of their property.
The legal position of Tony parking his car at the university’s premise and the car later being stolen is that the university is subjected to exclusion clause by the security notice when Tony decided to park his car at the university ground; he was assuming all the risks associated with it. This included the risk of his vehicle being stolen. Furthermore, he was not entitled to a parking lot at the university because he lived at a distance that was less than ten miles. He did not have a car pass anyway, and he could not prove that he had left the car at the university premises. Tony had expressly relieved the University of any Liability when he parked his vehicle, and ignored the security warning placed at the gate. There are no legal claims he can make against the university for his stolen vehicle. The legal position on this case can be seen in the precedent set in the case between Vaughan – v – (Menlove 1937) 3 Bing N.C. 468 which involved a tortuous liability. The facts of the case were that the defendant had been warned that his hay would overheat and catch fire, which would spread to neighbor's land. He said he would chance it, and the stack actually caught fire.
It was held that the he was liable for all his damages and he could not sue anyone because he assumed the risk of having stacked the hay at a place that was prone to fire. In the same breath, Tony could not have packed his vehicle at the university because from the police records a lot of theft had been going on at the university. Tony being a university lecturer, and the theft happening at the university where he taught, ought to have known the dangers that came with parking his car. Also the case between Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd can be used to set the precedence in this case.
He cannot have a claim from the university and I would advice him to liaise with the investigative arm of the government to try to get the people behind the spiraling thefts of car at the university and around the area. After they catch the suspects, they should be taken to court and charged with theft. From there, he can get his vehicle back from the thieves. Tony should also work closely with his insurance agent because if he had taken an insurance policy against theft, he would stand a better chance of compensation by the insurance company.