A bank on the ground floor of the building had been robbed seven times during the previous two years. In the prior year, there had been two rapes in the 50 square blocks surrounding the building. The condition of the garage had deteriorated in the months leading up to the assault. Several lights were out at a time, leaving several darkened areas where an attacker could lie in wait. The garage's security camera had not been working for months.
Property owners have a duty to take reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable criminal acts.
In the present case, the Court rejected the notion that underground parking structures are so inherently dangerous as to impose a duty to provide security guards. There was no evidence to show that such structures were actually more prone to violence than other locations. This particular parking garage had been crime-free for 10 years without employing security guards. Forcing all garage operators to employ security guards would effectively make them insurers of public safety, contrary to public policy. Sharon P.'s argument that the garage owner should have adopted other security measures fared no better.