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~