Motorist parked her car at EZ-Park, a large downtown valet parking garage.The ticket she received from the attendant includes the following terms printed conspicuously on the back.

No Liability.Motorists park at their own risk!EZ-Park disclaims all liability for injury or damage to motorists, their passengers, their vehicle, or any other property from all causes.EZ-Park's rates for parking are set in reliance upon this limitation of liability being fully enforceable.Any motorist who does not accept the limitation of liability provision must exit the parking facility immediately.

Motorist read the terms and parked anyway.While she was away, two of EZ-Park's employees took her car for a joy ride and caused significant damage to the front fender (repair cost $2,000).They also left the car unlocked while they had lunch and Thief stole Motorist's computer (valued at $1,000) from inside the car.Motorist later found out that similar incidents happen at EZ-Park every month.

If Motorist sues EZ-Park, do you think the courtwillenforce the limitation of liability provision?Do you think courtshouldenforce this provision?Why or why not?