You Are Assaulted In A Parking Area
Where No Security Is Provided.
Is The Landlord Liable?

      A  recent  decision  of the Court of Appeal  in  California
suggests  that  a  landlord's liability for  an  assault  upon  a
tenant's employee or customer in a parking area may depend, among
other  factors,  upon whether parking is provided  in  a  parking
structure or an uncovered surface parking lot.

      The  Court  considered the claim of a female plaintiff  who
alleged  that she was attacked and sexually assaulted at gunpoint
in  a subterranean parking garage in a commercial office building
located on South Beverly Drive in Los Angeles, California.

      The  plaintiff  alleged  that she  entered  the  building's
underground parking garage at about 11:00 a.m. and parked in  her
assigned  space.  When she exited the vehicle, a  man  in  a  ski
mask,  pointing a gun at her, approached.  The woman  was  forced
back into the car and sexually assaulted.

      It  was also charged that there were darkened areas of  the
garage  and  that lights were out in the immediate  area  of  her
parking space.  The woman claimed she never saw any employees  of
the  landlord monitoring or inspecting the garage and that  after
the  attack, she learned that the security cameras in the  garage
had not been working for months.

      The plaintiff also submitted evidence of "various crimes in
the surrounding neighborhood, including a number of robberies  in
a bank located above the parking garage . . . ."

      The  court  noted  that a subterranean  parking  garage  or
parking structure can invite acts of theft and vandalism because

     "numerous  tempting targets (car stereos, car contents,
     the cars themselves) are displayed for the thief.  High
     walls, low ceilings and the absence of the cars' owners
     allow  the thief or vandal to work in privacy and  give
     him  time  to  complete his task.   Such  circumstances
     increase  the  likelihood of criminal  misconduct.   In
     addition,  the  deserted, labyrinthine  nature  of  the
     structures,  especially  at night,  makes  them  likely
     places for robbers and rapists to lie and wait."

     As a result of such increased likelihood of crime, the court
determined  that parking structures are inherently dangerous  and
further observed that they "are not policed except to the  extent
that  those parties making a profit from their operation  can  be
persuaded  to do so."  Because parking structures are  considered
inherently  dangerous,  violet  crime  is  foreseeable   by   the
landlord.   Since such conduct is foreseeable, the landlord  must
take steps to provide security, or face liability arising out  of
the failure to do so if injury results.

      In considering the potential liability of the landlord, the
court  specifically stated that "we do not include  single-level,
uncovered   surface   parking   lots   because   their   physical
characteristics do not present the level of danger . . . which is
inherent in a covered parking garage."

     The court thus did not change existing law regarding surface
parking  lots  which requires the demonstration of prior  similar
incidents  of  violent  crime  upon the  landlord's  premises  to
establish liability.  A duty will be imposed upon the landlord to
provide parking area security for surface lots only when physical
violence  is sufficiently foreseeable.  If there has not  been  a
prior incident, physical violence is arguably not foreseeable.

     Finally, the court concludes

     "Absent  sufficient and desirable mass transit, parking
     garages  are,  and will continue to be,  as  common  as
     vehicles themselves.  They are entrenched part  of  our
     lives,   whether   in   shopping   malls,   educational
     institutions, sports facilities, government  complexes,
     or  the work environment.  The need for such facilities
     can  hardly  be avoided, especially given  California's
     love  affair  with  the  automobile  and  its  lack  of
     effective mass transportation.  Therefore, they  should
     be  made  to be both functional and safe.  However,  as
     they  are  located on private property,  they  are  not
     routinely,  or  even  sporadically,  patrolled  by  the
     police.   It  must be the responsibility of the  owners
     and   operators  of  commercial  parking   garages   or
     structures  to  make them reasonably safe  for  use  by
     tenants  and  visitors.  Public  policy  dictates  that
     persons  who profit from owning or managing facilities,
     which  by their very nature create . . . [a] temptation
     and opportunity for criminal conduct,' should supply at
     least  the  minimal amount of security warranted  under
     the particular circumstances of the case.

     As  for  the economic consequences of such  a  duty  of
     care,  there is no evidence that the cost of  providing
     sufficient protection cannot reasonably be passed on to
     the persons who utilize the parking garage . . . .  The
     `cost'  of  parking  should include  its  entire  cost,
     including reasonable security measures."

The  message  of  the  story?  Be careful  where  you  park  your
automobile.  Don't place yourself or your possessions at risk  by
parking  in a dark corner of a parking structure.  Better  to  be
uninjured and happy, than to be emotionally or physically scarred
and entitled to pursue a lawsuit against the landlord!

[This column is intended to provide general information only  and
is  not intended to provide specific legal advice; if you have  a
specific  question  regarding the  law,  you  should  contact  an
attorney  of your choice.  Suggestions for topics to be discussed
in this column are welcome.]


Reprinted from New Era Magazine
Myles M. Mattenson © 1997-2002