Je, hili limekaaje kisheria?

[mbenge]

Ukienda kununua bidhaa ama huduma katika baadhi ya maeneo ya biashara, katika eneo la kuegesha magari anakutana na kibao chenye maneno 'Parking at Your Own Risk"

Hii ikiwa na maana ya kuwa muuzaji wa bidhaa ama huduma hawajibiki kwa ulinzi wala usalama wa gari la mteja wake ambaye amekwenda kufuata mahitaji yake katika eneo lake la biashara.

Mathalani mimi ni mgonjwa, na nimekwenda hospitali kwa ajili ya kupata matibabu. Taratibu za kitabibu zinafahamika, toka katika kujiandikisha, kumuona daktari, uchukuaji wa vipimo, kupata matibabu husika, mpaka kupewa dawa za ugonjwa unaonisumbua. Je, katika muda wote huo wa kusubiri kupewa huduma hizo za kiafya, ni tafsiri ya kisheria kuwa ulinzi na usalama wa gari ni jukumu langu mimi mwenyewe?

Je, Kisheria imekaaje, endapo nikakuta gari langu limeibiwa, baadhi ya vifaa kuibiwa, limegongwa, au kuwaka moto? Mwenye biashara hana jukumu lolote la kisheria kama shahidi wangu muhimu?

Je, kupitia maelezo ya kibao hicho, mwenye biashara hawajibiki wala kuguswa kisheria kwa janga lolote lile ambalo linaweza kutokea katika gari la mteja wake, na linalotokea katika eneo lake la biashara, na pia la mteja wake akiwa katika mchakato wa kupata huduma yake?

 

[Mjanja M1]

Hawajibiki kwa lolote.

ANALINDWA NA KIBAO CHAKE ALICHOKIWEKA.

KaziKweliKweli/JobTrueTrue

 

[Paroco]

Ushaelekezwa wewe unashupaza shingo. Kwani huduma unayoifuata hapo anayo yeye tuu!!?

 

[mbenge]

Hawajibiki kwa lolote.

ANALINDWA NA KIBAO CHAKE ALICHOKIWEKA.

KaziKweliKweli/JobTrueTrue

Ni kwa kupitia kifungu kipi cha sheria?

 

[mbenge]

Ushaelekezwa wewe unashupaza shingo. Kwani huduma unayoifuata hapo anayo yeye tuu!!?

Suala siyo kushupaza shingo, ubora wa huduma ama bidhaa, ndivyo humshawishi mteja ashawishike na kuvutiwa kwenda sehemu fulani zaidi ya nyingine.

 

[Paroco]

Suala siyo kushupaza shingo, ubora wa huduma ama bidhaa, ndivyo humshawishi mteja ashawishike na kuvutiwa kwenda sehemu fulani zaidi ya nyingine.

Ni sahihi lkn ndo ushapewa warning ukipata tatzo utamlalamikia nani na yeye alishaweka coution!!!?

 

[mbenge]

Nimeikuta sehemu fulani katika Google nikiwa natafuta kujua zaidi.

The occupier of premises owes, to all visitors, a duty to take such care, as in all circumstances of the case, is reasonable to see that a visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is permitted or invited to be there, except where, by agreement, his duty is restricted, modified or excluded.

The duty of care owed to visitors by the occupier relates to dangers due to the physical state of the premises and to things done or omitted to be done by the occupier and others for whose conduct he is under a common law liability. The duty is therefore to take reasonable care that the condition of the premises is not a source of danger.

The Occupiers’ Liability Act does not impose on an occupier the duty to guard goods brought onto the premises by visitors against damage or theft, unless there exists a special relationship or bailment. Where there is no bailment, the common law rule is that there is no duty on the occupier to protect the goods of his visitors from theft or damage by a third party.

The Occupiers’ Liability Act makes no changes to this common law rule. Bailment refers to the transfer of possession, but not ownership, of personal property for a limited time or specified purpose such that the individual or business entity taking possession is liable to some extent for loss or damage to the property. A mere licence to put goods on land, as in the case of most car parks does not make the operator of the car park a bailee and so does not impose on him the duty to safeguard cars in the car park.

In Lascelle Samms and Jillian Samms v Lane Investments Limited and Milex Security Services Limited [2015] JMSC Civ. 244 the 1st Claimant was let into a car park by security guards employed to a security company contracted by the proprietors of the car park, who directed her as to where she should park. She locked up the motor car and on her return, about two hours later, discovered that it was stolen.

The Claimants initiated suit against the Defendants for negligence arising from the loss of the motor car. The Supreme Court held that there was no contractual relationship between the Claimants and the Defendants which could give rise to a bailment. The relations were clearly that of licensor and licensee. The 1st Claimant retained possession of the car and did not hand it over to the 1stor 2nd Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendants were under no duty to guard the Claimants’ motor car against the risk of theft.

Further, there is no general duty to prevent third parties from causing damage to others, even though there is a high degree of foresight that they may do so. The practical effect is that everyone has to take such steps as he thinks fit to protect his own property.

A car park owner cannot in the absence of a special relationship be said to owe a duty of care to prevent the damage or theft of a car parked in its car park. A person who leaves his motor car in a car park cannot assume or assert against the car park proprietor any obligation to use reasonable care to look after the car. Such a car is therefore left in the car park entirely at the owner’s risk unless the car is delivered into the custody of the car park owner for his safekeeping.

Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd, 1987 S.C.L.R. 489