AIBU? preschool carparking

[Maca12]

So my elderly mum picks up my child from nursery. Typical after having asked the nursery owner,before to deal with their carpark potholes as they are now so deep it was an accident waiting to happen. At the time they said yes lots of parents have complained, and commented in the survey and the XXX will fill in holes when they can. The potholes are massive and there is no where to park for drop offs as the nursery is next to a main road.

Then yes you guessed it, sods law my mum drives out of carpark with my child, and bang her car is damaged. AA called out new tyre, damage to bottom of bumper and electrics need resetting, having got stuck in a pothole. No way to have avoided it at end of slope there are lots. Lovely parents rushed to help my upset mum and child. Nursery response: send out deputy and then manager to remind my mum its not their responsibility! No apology (I know that does not admit liability), no caring how are you? I am angry, in fact fuming. When I phone them afterwards I am reminded not their problem, but they will raise an email.

Three things:

1. do the nursery not have a duty of care to maintain their facilities? I have written in the past about carpark and they had the slope concreted as such an issue.
2. damage to mums car (its was not broken into or damaged by someone else car so not sure sign relevant). Does she have any rights?
3. But most of all the nursery cold hearted, do not care response, no follow up, lets stick up a sign, might as well have stuck up two fingers!

AIBU?

Apologising can leave them on dodgy legal ground when an insurance claim is made, the company may try to claim costs.

1. do the nursery not have a duty of care to maintain their facilities?
This is private land, there is no duty to make sure it is pothole free etc, park at your own risk.

2. damage to mums car (its was not broken into or damaged by someone else car so not sure sign relevant). Does she have any rights?
She has the right to claim off her insurance as it was an accident that she drove into a large hole.

3. But most of all the nursery cold hearted, do not care response, no follow up, lets stick up a sign, might as well have stuck up two fingers!
I get that it's frustrating and I'd have been pissed off too but legally they are probably safer not getting into apologies etc. I'm sure that it wouldn't actually make a difference but they are likely just being cautious.
That said I think they could have apologised that they haven't been able to afford the repairs yet and reassured everyone that it was a priority and explained the issues in resolving it immediately.

Thanks for comments
Yes a claim has gone to insurer
xxx is the "gardener" apparently he has not filled in hole as promised which I was informed is a weekly event.
To drive around 🤔not so much of a hole but a cliff drop at the end of a ramp which is impossible to drive around, but all good valid points.
Given your advice absolutely no point asking themto fix the carpark lights whilst they are at it 🤣😉

The nursery won't admit liability. Drivers also have a personal responsibility, you/your mum are aware the holes are there and are an "accident waiting to happen" yet still choose to drive over them every day and take that risk. You can't abdicate all responsibility.

Perhaps the only way for them to get on with it is if they suffer financially - parents moving their children to another nursery.

The nursery may be responsible. If they are responsible for the carpark then they could be negligent - they have a duty of care to users of the carpark and they have failed in this duty of care and it has directly caused damage. It is reasonably foreseeable hence negligence should be able to be proved.

The important thing is who was responsible. For example if they are a tenant and in their contract the landlord is responsible for the repairs and they have told the landlord then the landlord could be negligent (however they still may have had a duty of care eg should have warned parents not to use it). Or if its council owned and they have told the council of issues. But as their gardener was supposed to fill the holes in it suggests it was them responsible for it.

They ste being stupid, the cost of a claim for someone falling over and really hurting themselves is much less than the cost of filling in pot holes.

Also their insurance will say about not apologising / admitting liability which is probably their their rude manner was from however there is no excuse for being rude

The nursery would potentially become liable as they have been informed. A former boss once told me that if someone sat on a chair and it broke, then not much that person could do. However if there was proof that they knowingly allowed a damaged chair to be used and it caused an accident then they would be liable (why they were so keen to be on top of maintenance). So I would suggest given prior knowledge given of the issues and they agreed it needed to be dealt with you would have a reasonable civil case, but likely lawyers or small claims court.

Playing devil's advocate if your mum couldn't avoid the pot hole how did she get in the car park and how come no one else's car has had the same damage?

Ask to move this to legal and they will let you know whether your mum has a case against them.

You could be me! Had this with nursery about a year ago - my mum dropped DS off, straight into a pothole (it was dark and no lights in car park) I know we have previously and other parents have asked for potholes and lights in the car park but nothing! My mum didn’t claim on the insurance, just repaired with local garage, wasn’t worth the hassle. The manager was lovely though - id keep complaining - what if a child hurts themselves?

Cliff drop? You sound utterly ridiculous.

Presumably all the other drivers managed to avoid it, or I'm sure that would have featured in your highly dramatised tale, so there clearly was a way to avoid it.

Have you checked the terms and conditions and the signage? There may be something saying people use the car park at their own risk.

Beveren 'At Your Own Risk' signs are mostly irrelevant if you can prove they have acted negligently - which potentially they have because they were previously warned about the potholes.

Disclaimers don't absolve companies from negligence.

Did every car leaving the car park that day suffer the same damage?

"Cliff drop? You sound utterly ridiculous."

No, she doesn't; she's exaggerating for effect. Did you really think she meant it was a literal cliff drop?

Your Mum’s insurers will try and recover costs from the nursery insurers if there is any case for liability.

No need for you to go on the warpath.

Did every car leaving the car park that day suffer the same damage?

If the nursery sign had been blowing loose, was reported to the nursery and then one day blew down and dented your car - would it not matter because every car in the car park that day didn't suffer the same damage? No.
Would the 'park at your own risk' signs have absolved them from responsibility? No.

They were negligent. Therefore responsible.

LochJessMonster, I think that only applies in relation to negligence causing injury - a disclaimer can be effective in relation to property damage if it is reasonable.