Audrey Martinez says she was lulled into a false sense of security by a sign claiming 24-7 patrols, but she says she later noticed there were no cameras.Though it isn't in the printed text of the article I linked, the radio report indicated that the parking lot owners reprimanded the attendant who took off early, but are taking no responsibility for the broken windows. They claimed that you "park at your own risk."
"The attendant that I paid the five dollars to that was supposed to be there during the entire game and after people leave he was not there, nobody was around to help," says Martinez.
I can buy that argument when it comes to door dings or car scratches. But when bandits run through your (un)attended parking lot and smash windows, you're accountable. There really shouldn't be any question here. That's the sort of thing people expect from an attended lot. I hope some of the victims take the lot owners to small claims court and get compensated if the actual perpetrators can't be found.
Businesses that do business like that may not pay up front, but they will pay in the long run in lost customer base and revenues. Also, businesses cannot blink away negligence or malfeasance with disclaimers. Disclaimers only work when businesses actually excercise normal prudence. That did not happen in this case.
My wife spent a decade as an insurance adjustor, and believe me, the car insurance people will be going after the lot owner's insurance to cover expenses. Their tiny print on the ticket and their signs in the lot will not protect them from their failure to exercise proper diligence.
I'm glad to hear that. I wonder if the lot owners changed their tune later in the day and that is why the printed new stories I could find didn't mention that aspect of the story.
Post a Comment