Whole Bicycle Rack Easily Removed! Is the provider liable?

Question

The story is - Parked and locked the bicycle at a seemingly secure parking-rack provided by a supermarket. I soon discovered that someone had locked my bicycle (and their own) to the rack. Returning a number of hours later (in the hope that the person had removed their bicycle and lock) I discovered that the whole rack had been removed and my bicycle taken. The thief simply unscrewed the bolts securing the rack to the ground and made off with the bicycle. The supermarket provided the parking-rack. There is CCTV from another source of the thief in action.

It is arguable that providing the parking-rack the supermarket (in this case the party contracted by the supermarket to install the parking racks) has a duty of care to potential users to insure that the parking-rack is fit-for-purpose and not easily removable.

Does installing arguably easy-to-remove parking-racks breach this duty?

If they had installed secure parking-racks I would still have my bicycle - are they liable for my loss?

Answer 1

They provide the rack for you to park your bike not necessarily lock it, that part is up to you. I have never heard anyone make a claim that ANY rack is safe, the courts will find that it is your responsibility to check the effectiveness of the rack.

If shopping centers were responsible for the security of your bike, you would soon find that bike racks would no longer exist.

Answer 2

They are anyway not liable, and these are the reasons that I can think of:

• They never said that is was a secured rack. If you had secured your bike to a small tree, and the tree was cut and your bike taken, you wouldn't sue the government for not making stronger trees and not putting a sign to warn you: 'This is an insecure tree. Be warned'
• When you parked your bike, you didn't even know for sure it was their rack. I assume that it was on public accessible ground, so anybody could have put a bike rack there.
• Apparently when you parked your bike, you found the rack to be secure enough, or you wouldn't have parked your bike there. Now that your bike is missing, suddenly the rack isn't secure enough anymore. If your bike and the rack would have been still there when you returned, would you also have said that the rack wasn't secure enough? No, of course not! Double standards, huh?

I did some additional research too, but it was hard to find anything (semi)official. But although the things that I found, some of which are below, were by no means official, or maybe even trustworthy, they all said the same thing: Bad luck for you, but the shop is not liable.

• Free Advice forum: Car Theft from Mall Parking Lot
• Ask Me Help Desk: Car stolen from parking lot
• World Law Direct: Employer Liability? (motorcycles stolen from the parking lot of their employer)
• Yahoo! Answers: Is my employer liable for theft?

Answer 3

The short answer is "No, it's likely that the store has no liability for the theft of your bike."

I am not a lawyer, so this longer answer is to the best of my layman's understanding

The key legal issue in the US is one of Bailment. For a bailment to be created the property in question has to be delivered to the bailee (the store or it's representative) by you (the bailor), and the bailee must have both possession and control of the property. Once a bailment has been created the bailee must take reasonable steps to care for the property that has been delivered but does not normally insure the bailor against all loss of or to the property while it is in the bailee's possession unless he expressly undertakes that obligation.

What this means is that the bailee is not liable for any and all damages or loss of the property while the property is in his care; he is only liable if the bailee can be proved negligent in caring for the property. Negligence can be proved if you can show that a reasonable person in possession and control of your property would not have taken whatever action led to the loss.

So, you rode up to a rack, chained up your bike and went your way. There was no transfer of possession or control from you to the store. The store couldn't move your bike (at least not under normal situations) and no individual implied in any way that they would look after or protect it. Even if it was obvious to a reasonable individual that the rack was poorly installed or easily circumvented, the bailment was not created in the first place, so the store has no duty whatsoever to protect your bike from theft or loss.

An overwhelming majority of cases covering automobiles have found no liability to the parking provider in similar cases. For example, when a customer pays a fee, drives his car to an available space, locks the car and takes the key, most US courts have held that you have merely leased space and that even with payment the control and possession of the vehicle necessary to constitute a bailment has not passed to the lot owner or operator.

If however you valet park your car, giving someone your keys in exchange for a claim ticket and they then park your car, which is subsequently stolen, you would likely have a claim because the operator/owner had not just possession but also control of the vehicle.

If you had been at some kind of event that had valet bike parking, then the answer might be different.

Here is a link about bailment with more information if you are part of the small segment of the population that has to know all the details (like me).

Answer 4

I have been designing and installing bicycle parking facilities for more than 10 years.

The owner of the rack has a duty of care to supply a bike rack fit for purpose - that a rider can lock their bike to the rack and the bike will be secure.

'Secure' is open to interpretation. My interpretation is that a lock should not be able to be removed from a bike rack using commonly available non-destructive tooling, ie. if someone can walk up with an off the shelf socket set, undo the bolts, unthread the lock and take the bike, then the rack is not secure.

If security fasteners (requiring specific tooling for installation) had been used, then this would be deemed secure - no liability on the part of the rack provider.

If destructive tooling had been used to cut the rack, (and the rack met the standards for bike racks) - no liability on the part of the provider.

It appears commonly available non-destructive tooling was used, therefore I believe the rack installer/provider had a duty to offer security fasteners to the owner, and the owner had a duty to accept the need for them.

By providing the rack to encourage you to shop with them, they have a duty to ensure the rack was fit for purpose, it appears it was not.

Similarly, if their car spaces are too narrow, bollards are too low, traffic aisles not marked correctly, they may be liable in some degree, if someones motor vehicle is damaged as a result.

Motor vehicle security is self contained and entirely provided by the vehicle owner, therefore no duty of care for security of a motor vehicle is owed.

Answer 5

Also on the insurance side, my policy requires me to fasten my bike to an immovable object. (This clause caused me to sink a couple of anchors into the concrete floor of my own garage.) So obviously if somebody has been able to walk away with the rack...

I'm afraid to say that not only will the store not be liable, but you may have no luck if you try to claim on insurance either.

Be interested to hear how you get on.