THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF NOTICES

THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF NOTICES IN BARS, LOUNGES AND HOTELS: WHEN DOES A NOTICE BECOME LEGALLY BINDING, AND WHEN DOES IT FAIL TO PROTECT THE ESTABLISHMENT?

By: Odinichionye A. Egwuenu Esq. ACIArb FISPN

Walk into a hotel, lounge, bar or recreational facility and you will almost certainly see them: notices strategically placed on walls, doors, car parks and swimming pools.

Some prohibit certain conduct. Others warn customers about risks. Some attempt to regulate the use of a facility, while others appear designed to protect the establishment from liability.

Among the common ones are:
"Consumption of illegal drugs is strictly prohibited.”
"Cars parked at owner's risk.”
"Management is not responsible for items left in vehicles.”
"Diving is prohibited.”
"No lifeguard on duty. Swim at your own risk.”
"Management is not responsible for accidents or injuries.”
"Use of the swimming pool constitutes acceptance of these rules.”
"Guests are responsible for their personal belongings.”
"Management shall not be liable for loss of personal property.”
"CCTV surveillance in operation.”
"By entering the premises, you consent to being recorded.”
"No refund.”

The question is: does putting up a notice automatically protect the establishment?

Not necessarily.
A notice may be a warning, a house rule, a contractual term, an acknowledgement or an attempt to exclude liability. Its legal effect depends on its wording, how and when it was brought to the customer's attention, the circumstances of the transaction, applicable law and, most importantly, what actually happened.

The central point is simple:
A notice is not a magic shield against liability.
Consumption of Illegal Drugs Is Strictly Prohibited
A hotel, lounge or bar is entitled to prohibit illegal activities on its premises. This notice makes the establishment's position clear and can be important where a customer engages in prohibited conduct.

But putting up the notice is only the first step. If management knows that illegal activity is taking place and deliberately ignores it, the existence of the notice may not answer every legal question that follows.

The rule must be supported by reasonable enforcement.
Cars Parked at Owner's Risk
This is perhaps one of the most common notices in commercial premises.

But a practical question arises: if a business invites customers to bring their vehicles to its premises, what reasonable security arrangements has it made for those vehicles?

A customer may accept that parking comes with certain risks. That does not necessarily mean the establishment can disregard its own responsibilities.

Imagine a hotel has security personnel controlling its car park. A guest parks her vehicle there. The hotel displays “Cars parked at owner's risk,” but the vehicle is stolen because a security guard negligently leaves the gate open or permits an unauthorized person to remove it.

Can the hotel simply point to the notice and say, “We warned her”?
Not necessarily.

The notice may be relevant, but the circumstances will matter. Was there negligence? Did the establishment undertake to provide security? What arrangements did it actually make?

The notice should therefore complement security measures, not replace them.

The same applies to:
«“Management is not responsible for items left in vehicles.”»

It is reasonable to warn customers against leaving valuables in their vehicles. But where the establishment operates a controlled car park, management should have proper security procedures and, where appropriate, a system for disclosure or recording of particularly valuable items left in vehicles.

The objective is not to make the business an insurer of every item in every car. It is to ensure that the business knows the risks it has undertaken to manage and does not use a disclaimer as an excuse for poor security.


Swimming Pools: "Swim at Your Own Risk”
This is where the distinction between a warning and a disclaimer of liability becomes particularly important.
Consider the notices:
"Diving is prohibited.”

"No lifeguard on duty. Swim at your own risk.”
"Management is not responsible for accidents or injuries.”
"Use of the swimming pool constitutes acceptance of these rules.”

These notices do not all do the same thing. “Diving is prohibited” regulates the swimmer's conduct. “No lifeguard on duty” warns of the absence of supervision. “Swim at your own risk” warns of the risks of swimming. “Management is not responsible for accidents or injuries” attempts to exclude liability.

Now consider this: I can swim. I enter the hotel pool after seeing the notices. While swimming, I step on a broken tile at the bottom of the pool and injure my foot.
Can the hotel simply say, “You were swimming at your own risk”?
Not necessarily.

I may have accepted the ordinary risks associated with swimming. I have not necessarily accepted the hotel's failure to keep the pool reasonably safe.

The hotel has permitted me to use its facility, and the law of occupiers' liability may impose duties concerning dangers arising from the condition of the premises. In Lagos, for example, the Law Reform (Torts) Law addresses duties owed by occupiers to visitors in relation to dangers arising from the state of premises.
So the question becomes: what caused the injury?

If the injury resulted from my reckless diving despite a clear prohibition, the circumstances are different. If it resulted from a broken tile which the hotel ought reasonably to have identified and repaired, the disclaimer may not provide the protection management expects.

And this is why "Swim at your own risk” should never become a substitute for maintenance.


If the pool is unsafe, the better notice is:
"POOL OUT OF USE — UNDER MAINTENANCE.”»
or:
"KEEP OFF — POOL UNDER MAINTENANCE.”»
But the notice must be backed by action. The pool should actually be closed and customers prevented from using it until the danger is addressed.

That is a much stronger demonstration that the establishment took reasonable steps to prevent injury.
The same principle applies to "No lifeguard on duty.” It may warn customers of the absence of a lifeguard, but it does not necessarily absolve the hotel from maintaining the facility safely.
A disclaimer cannot make a broken tile safe.

Guests' Personal Property
The notices:
"Guests are responsible for their personal belongings," and
“Management shall not be liable for loss of personal property,”
are intended to protect hotels from claims relating to lost or stolen property.

But again, the circumstances matter.
Was the property simply left unattended? Was it handed to the hotel for safekeeping? Did hotel staff have custody or control of it? Was the loss connected to negligence or misconduct by an employee?

A general notice cannot necessarily answer all those questions.
The sensible approach is to combine the notice with proper security, safekeeping procedures, incident reporting and staff protocols.

CCTV Surveillance
"CCTV surveillance in operation.”
This is useful as a transparency measure, but CCTV is also a data protection issue.
Where identifiable individuals are captured, personal data is being processed.

The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 therefore becomes relevant. A CCTV sign does not, by itself, satisfy every data protection obligation.

The same applies to:
"By entering the premises, you consent to being recorded."
Simply describing something as “consent” does not automatically make every processing activity lawful. The establishment must consider the appropriate legal basis, transparency requirements, purpose of processing, security and retention of the footage.

"No Refund"
"No refund" is another familiar notice.
There is a difference between refusing a refund because a customer simply changed their mind and attempting to deny a refund where the business failed to provide the service paid for or breached a legal obligation.
Consumer protection legislation may limit the effectiveness of blanket policies that purport to remove statutory consumer rights.
A clear refund and cancellation policy is therefore preferable to relying solely on the words “No refund.”

What If the Customer Does Not Understand the Notice?
There is another issue worth considering: language.

Suppose a safety notice is written in English and a customer does not understand English. The customer fails to appreciate the warning and suffers the very harm the notice was intended to prevent.
Can the business simply say, “The notice was there”?

Not necessarily.
The issue is whether the warning was reasonably communicated and capable of being understood in the circumstances. This does not mean every establishment must translate every notice into every possible language.

But for important safety warnings, simple language, symbols, pictograms or appropriate explanations may be necessary, particularly where the business knows that a significant part of its clientele may not understand the language used.

A notice that is technically present but practically incomprehensible may provide much less protection than the business assumes.
The Real Protection Is Not Always the Notice

Ultimately, business owners should understand that a notice is only one part of risk management.
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 contains provisions regulating notices and terms that seek to make consumers assume risks or exclude or limit liability, particularly in relation to negligence. The question is therefore not simply whether the notice exists, but whether the law permits the establishment to rely on it in the circumstances.

Business owners should ask:
Was the notice clear?
Was it brought to the customer's attention at the right time?
Was it understandable?
Did the establishment take reasonable steps to prevent the harm?

Was there negligence?
Does applicable law restrict the attempted exclusion of liability?
Most importantly, businesses should not use notices as substitutes for safety and responsible management.

Repair the broken tile. Secure the car park. Protect guest property. Train staff. Close unsafe facilities. Keep records. Respond to incidents.

Because when something goes wrong, the question may not be:
"Did you have a notice?”

It may be:
"What did you do to prevent the harm in the first place?”
That is the difference between a notice that genuinely helps a business manage risk and a notice that merely creates a false sense of legal protection.

A notice can regulate conduct, communicate risk and, in appropriate circumstances, become part of the contractual relationship. But it cannot necessarily rewrite the law or provide immunity from every consequence of negligence.