contract-law england-and-wales
Why doesn&#39;t s.65 Consumer Rights Act 2015 bar grocery staff from excluding their liability for killing my horse?
<p>Here are the facts of my case.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>P (Plaintiff) rides her horse into  town. P decides to stop at D’s (Defendant) grocery store. In D’s car park she ties the horse to a pole, where there is also a bicycle. P doesn’t notice the
red sign above the space where the horse is standing. This says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>‘Free two hour parking for all customers when they shop at D’s: D’s accepts
no liability for any loss to customers, howsoever caused.’</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>While P is shopping, D’s employees spray the area around the pole with disinfectant, which
causes the horse to die. When P complains, D draws her attention to D's sign and tells P that D is not liable to pay P any damages for P's loss.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li><p>I called <a href="https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/finding-free-or-affordable-legal-help/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Citizens Advice</a>. A solicitor advised me that <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/65/enacted" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CRA 2015 s 65 (Bar on exclusion or restriction of negligence liability)</a> doesn’t prevent exclusion of liability for the death of P's horse. Why not?</p>
</li>
<li><p>What exactly did D breach? I'm guessing <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/49/enacted" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CRA s 49 (Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill)</a>?</p>
</li>
</ol>

<p>Your right to have your horse not be killed is not a consumer right. &quot;Consumer rights&quot; are rights that you only  have because you are a consumer. The issue described in the question is not about consumer rights.</p>
<p>The sign tells you that there are risks connected to using the car park (obviously because there are lots of cars driving around, there might even be car thieves), and you accepted these risks. It doesn't give the shop permission to do anything they like. Instead of a horse, imagine a shop worker walking around with a hammer and smashing windscreens of cars; that sign isn't going to protect them. But a shop worker collecting trolleys might accidentally bump into your car, and the sign <em>might</em> protect them in such a case.</p>
<p>I'd say spraying chemicals strong enough to kill a horse shouldn't happen at all (I suppose these chemicals could also kill a human), and definitely not when there is actually a horse present. To me, it's closer to the employee with a hammer than to the employee with shopping trolleys, so a court should find the shop liable.</p>
