Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/6/2005 3:40:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 2:34:40 PM EDT by Msokol13]
Hey all,

Taking a business law class over the summer for school and I cant find an answer to this question. I have been using the website FINDLAW.COM for my sources so far but I spent about an hour looking for related cases and turned up nothing.

Here is the question:

Mary drove her car onto a parking lot owned and operated by the National Parking Corporation. She had been in the habit of using this particular parking lot at least once a week for about 2 years. The parking lot had a sign over the entrance that clearly indicated that it was a parking lot. About 2 dozen cars were in the parking lot. A young man who appeared to be the parking attendent and who had in his possession a handful of tickets approached Mary. Mary asked him to park her car, which he agreed to do. He then asked her how long it would be before she returned and she answered that she would be back in about an hour. When she returned, the parking lot was unattended and she could not find her car. Subsequently Mary discovered that the apparent parking attendent had taken her car and had been involved in an accident that extensively damaaged the car. Mary sued National Parking Corporation claming that the corporation had, by its actions, led her to believe that the young man was a parking attendent in its employ. Therefore, she claimed that she deserved to be reimbursed for her loss. Was Mary correct?
Explain.


Sorry if it is full of spelling errors I typed it up mad fast.
Please, if you know the answer I could use the help.

Using the website FINDLAW.COM I think I have the information that I need on a case. Here is a specific quote from the case that basically says the parking lot owners who had no prior knowledge of this situation are NOT responsible.


It is the duty of a owner/landlord to protect invitees from injury caused by the misconduct of third persons if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger from the conduct of third persons or if the injury could have been prevented by the owner/landlord through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence. A showing that the owner/landlord had, or should have had, prior knowledge that the presence of third persons created a dangerous condition for patrons on his premises is typically necessary in order to show the existence of a duty on the part of the owner to provide preventative security measures

Thanks for all of the help guys~
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:41:35 PM EDT
Not gonna help ya, but in todays courts its not about who was correct, but about what people "Feel"
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:45:48 PM EDT

A young man who appeared to be the parking attendent and who had in his possession a handful of tickets approached Mary. Mary asked him to park her car, which he agreed to do.


If young man was an employee of N.P.C., and valet parking is the norm, then she is right.
If after 2 years of using this lot she just ASSUMED that they had just aquired valet parking, then she's wrong.
And a dumb ass at that.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:46:51 PM EDT
If he was not employed by the parking lot then no. I believe this falls under the "sorry about your luck" case law.

Look into a recent case in West Palm Beach, FL in regards to duties owed by parking lot owners.

Once again, sorry about your luck. Here's your sign........
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:48:48 PM EDT
mary is wrong, assumption is the mother of all fuck ups
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:49:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 3:53:39 PM EDT by Ben70]
Edit...I bow out.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:52:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AROKIE:
mary is wrong, assumption is the mother of all fuck ups



+1 to that.

Assuming anything can bite you in the ass when you least suspect it.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:52:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunslinger808:

A young man who appeared to be the parking attendent and who had in his possession a handful of tickets approached Mary. Mary asked him to park her car, which he agreed to do.


If young man was an employee of N.P.C., and valet parking is the norm, then she is right.
If after 2 years of using this lot she just ASSUMED that they had just aquired valet parking, then she's wrong.
And a dumb ass at that.


However, NPC allowed (by not hiring security) malfeasants and miscreants to loiter around, wearing valet-like attire.

For that, she will awarded the full amount.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:53:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:
If he was not employed by the parking lot then no. I believe this falls under the "sorry about your luck" case law.

Look into a recent case in West Palm Beach, FL in regards to duties owed by parking lot owners.

Once again, sorry about your luck. Here's your sign........



+1
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:55:26 PM EDT
Interesting answers guys, if anyone can hotlink an article with the answer to this I would be greatly appreciative.

I myself belive the "sorry, your a dumb-ass" case law.
But like the one guy said, by not hiring security and allowing people to pose as attendents they can be held liable...hmm...
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:56:39 PM EDT
Well....I tend to believe that Mary was just a dumbass. If the parking lot was unattended for all the other visits Mary made there, she should be curious as to why now it is "attended". In that vein it's no different than Mary giving her keys to some loon on the street. Buyer beware?

I would assume that National may also share some of the blame (contributory) if they let this happen on their property. Usually a Company must me indemnified for this type of shit. Neglegence?

Given the vaguery of the scenario, and the inability to ask further questions, I agree with the post that states that it would be up to how the court "feels" as to where actual liability would be placed.

I'm not an attorney, but I play one on TV.

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 10:42:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By Gunslinger808:

A young man who appeared to be the parking attendent and who had in his possession a handful of tickets approached Mary. Mary asked him to park her car, which he agreed to do.


If young man was an employee of N.P.C., and valet parking is the norm, then she is right.
If after 2 years of using this lot she just ASSUMED that they had just aquired valet parking, then she's wrong.
And a dumb ass at that.


However, NPC allowed (by not hiring security) malfeasants and miscreants to loiter around, wearing valet-like attire.

For that, she will awarded the full amount.




Negative, read the case that just came out of West Palm Beach, FL.....no duty owed to the lot customers
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 10:53:36 PM EDT
I don't know about Mary or this scenario, but I know of a similar incident involving a Sam's Wholesale Club and a guy who dropped off his vehicle to get a new set of tires...

The grease-monkey who installed the tires took the car for a "test-drive" that was later determined to be a "Personal Frolick" and the technician totalled the vehicle.

The owner looked to Sam's to replace his vehicle and Sam's told him to take a hike...

He sued Sam's Wholesale AND LOST because Sam's argued against "Respondiate Superiore" (let the enployer be responsible for the actions of it's employees) and Sam's won saying that the mechanic voluntarily resigned his position when he took the vehicle for an unauthorized joyride and was no longer an employee of Sam's Club when he totalled the car. Thus, the only recourse that the customer had was a claim against the mechanic and not Sam's Club. Of course, the mechanic did not have a pot to pizz-in and had no assets to satisfy a judgment.

I'll look up the case number and citations later, it's freakin' 2:00 AM and I'm going to bed now.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 11:00:24 PM EDT
What you forgot to mention was the sign right under the National Parking Lot sign: "not responsible for lost/stolen/damaged items!"

Mary is an idiot. Anybody who gives the keys to their vehilce to some greasy scumbag with a ponytail deserves to get their car stolen!!!
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 11:10:38 PM EDT
1. The doctrine of apparent agency holds an actor responsible for the actions of those the actor knew or should have known held themselves out as its agents,

2. An owner of business premises has a duty to protect its invitees from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties, and usually has a duty of vigilance to take reasonable steps to inform itself of and to warn or protect its patrons against such criminal activity.

If the scam had ever been perpetrated there before, or if similar scams at other lots had been publicized, I'd take the case on contingency.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 11:16:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By leo6223:

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By Gunslinger808:

A young man who appeared to be the parking attendent and who had in his possession a handful of tickets approached Mary. Mary asked him to park her car, which he agreed to do.


If young man was an employee of N.P.C., and valet parking is the norm, then she is right.
If after 2 years of using this lot she just ASSUMED that they had just aquired valet parking, then she's wrong.
And a dumb ass at that.


However, NPC allowed (by not hiring security) malfeasants and miscreants to loiter around, wearing valet-like attire.

For that, she will awarded the full amount.




Negative, read the case that just came out of West Palm Beach, FL.....no duty owed to the lot customers



You have any more information on the case?

"west palm beach" & "parking lot" & liab!
turns up nothing relevant to the issue in Lexis as far back as 2002.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:09:25 AM EDT
mary must be blonde
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:37:56 AM EDT
It says Mary asked him to park her car, not that he offered to. So he didn't directly walk up to her and pretend to be a parking attendant. I don't know if that makes a difference, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 2:54:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BigWorm55:
It says Mary asked him to park her car, not that he offered to. So he didn't directly walk up to her and pretend to be a parking attendant. I don't know if that makes a difference, but I figured I'd throw it out there.



True, from my gathering of the situation Mary did go up and ask him to park her car. BUT he also had a handful of tickets......same rationale as walks like a duck...talks like a duck....must be a duck.


So no real hard factual information as of yet? Wish I had more information on this case, but that is all the information available on the case study.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:46:09 AM EDT
Here's how you start your answer.

The appropriate question is not "Was Mary correct?" but rather could have been, "does Mary have a valid claim?" or "Will Mary prevail on her claim?" then a sub question "please discuss."

So the answer to the current question is "it depends."

Remember to start with cause of action. You can go at least two ways with this - breach of contract or tort (FYI, just mention the contract claim, but spend your time on list the elements of a tort and explaining how it applies here). After you establish your tort elements, your answer needs to focus on apparent authority, the parking lot owner's duty and knowledge about the fake attendants (had they received notice that these guys were hanging out there), and causation - is there a causal link between the parklot company's breach of duty and the accident. The parking lot people will claim that the criminal act was an intervening cause. We also need more facts about the case - was there a sign stating that it was an unattended lot?

R.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:51:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pale_pony:
I don't know about Mary or this scenario, but I know of a similar incident involving a Sam's Wholesale Club and a guy who dropped off his vehicle to get a new set of tires...

The grease-monkey who installed the tires took the car for a "test-drive" that was later determined to be a "Personal Frolick" and the technician totalled the vehicle.

The owner looked to Sam's to replace his vehicle and Sam's told him to take a hike...

He sued Sam's Wholesale AND LOST because Sam's argued against "Respondiate Superiore" (let the enployer be responsible for the actions of it's employees) and Sam's won saying that the mechanic voluntarily resigned his position when he took the vehicle for an unauthorized joyride and was no longer an employee of Sam's Club when he totalled the car. Thus, the only recourse that the customer had was a claim against the mechanic and not Sam's Club. Of course, the mechanic did not have a pot to pizz-in and had no assets to satisfy a judgment.

I'll look up the case number and citations later, it's freakin' 2:00 AM and I'm going to bed now.



That's an appealable case because that's just a bunch of poo. Your arguement on appeal is 1) that's not consistent with any established law, and 2) that's very bad public policy to allow employers to hire losers like this guy and they say "oh yes, the quit right before that killed your dog." It relieves the employer of any liability that they should actually be responsible for. The employer has a duty to protect its customers from its employees and can't just say "gotcha, he quit."

R.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:55:18 AM EDT
You're going to have to think back to the issues the professor taught in class to determine how in-depth your legal analysis has to be. In other words, what is the professor looking for? A bunch of ARFCOM lawyers with expertise in all sorts of areas of law may be able to win this case in court, but if for example you write your answer based on agency law, and your professor barely mentioned the law of agency, you won't get the highest grade possible. This is what you get for skipping out of class to go to the lake, ya slacker!
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:00:13 AM EDT
+1 to Freemanesq's first post. This looks like your best bet to answer the question without skipping any issues. You're an undergrad right? If so, you're probably not required to have a background in tort law, so make sure you discussed tort actions in class before using them in your answer.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 5:35:19 AM EDT
Correct or not will have to be interpreted by the Judge. As far as having a pliable cause to sue, I would have to say yes.
1. He should have been picked up on a grand theft auto warrant for taking the car out of the pre-determined working area (i.e parking garage/lot ) If he was not an actual employee, GTA on her side and NPC could go after him for their losses in the aftermath.
2. His presence there was something that the company should have had a check and balance system in place to keep this from happening.
3. Even if he was not an employee of the company, he was representing the company in that moment of dishonesty. If the company allowed this to take place, even if they know nothing of it, it was still their responsibility as this happened on their location and they did nothing to prevent the possibility of this happening.
Companies have a responsibility to the public to make sure their location is secure, safe and in correct working order as to pertains to their type of business.
This company failed in this. Therefor they hold some of the liability in this.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 2:35:04 PM EDT
Think I found my answer.....I put the quote in the original post up top!
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 3:58:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Msokol13:
Think I found my answer.....I put the quote in the original post up top!



Hmm. It sounds familiar.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:39:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By Msokol13:
Think I found my answer.....I put the quote in the original post up top!



Hmm. It sounds familiar.



I figured you would be along to say that.
Thanks for the help!
Top Top