EXCLUSION CLAUSE

Andy’s company operates a fleet of haulage trucks that transport goods to commercial depots and warehouses all around the country. Andy himself often works as a truck driver, delivering goods. At the depot of one of Andy’s clients, Hazelwood Ltd, the following notice is in place.

“For commercial delivery use only. The use of these facilities is strictly at your own risk and Hazelwood Ltd accepts no liability whatsoever for any damage or injury sustained by either those using this facility or their vehicles or property, no matter how caused.’
Andy was aware of the notice, but had never paid much attention to it. However, one day, after delivering some goods to Hazelwood Ltd, he returned to his truck to find that it had been badly damaged by a towing vehicle driven by an employee of Hazelwood Ltd. Whilst on his way to the office to complain, he wos hit by the same towing vehicle. As a result, not only was his truck severely damaged, but he suffered a broken leg and was off work for eight weeks.
Hazelwood Ltd has accepted that its employee was negligent on both counts but denies any liability, relying on the exclusion clause.
(a)
Which TWO of the following are characteristics of valid exclusion clauses?
1)Excludes all liability on a contract altogether
2)Restricts liability on a contract by limiting damages
3)Excludes onerous conditions in the contract
4)Excludes certain contract terms from applying in certain situations

I know answer is 2, but I thought the other would be 4. But it’s 1. HOW AND WHY? And why not 4?

(b)
Will Andy receive damages from Hazelwood Ltd in respect of the following:

The damage to his truck:
The injury to his leg:

The answer to both is will recieve damages. I know under UCTA personal injury due to negligence can’t be excluded. So they will recieve damages. But why fir truck damage??