Court Opinion

ID: 9652260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:21:23.720545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:49.735102
License: Public Domain

SunLivAN, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I am in full agreement with the part of the majority opinion which holds that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of Camden Parking. Its method of doing business gave rise to the foreseeable risk that a vehicle left in its custody would be stolen and thereafter become involved in an accident. Therefore it had a duty to take reasonable precautions to guard against this risk. Whether it breached that duty was a jury question.
I part company with the majority when it holds that Judith Yaskin, the owner of the car, had a duty similar to that cast upon the parking lot. Legal responsibility for the consequences of leaving car keys in a vehicle depends on cir*149cumstanees. It is one thing to park a car overnight on a public street with the car doors unlocked and the key left in the ignition, Zinck v. Whelan, 120 N. J. Super. 432 (App. Div. 1972); it is something else to park a car in a garage or parking lot and be required by the attendant to leave the car keys in order to facilitate the shifting of vehicles.
The majority apparently bases its holding on the assumption that the car was stolen from the lot after 5:00 p.m. when the attendant left. It suggests that “it might be quite a different situation had the theft occurred prior to 5:00 p.m." In fact, there is no evidence indicating when the car was taken and, in my opinion, it is equally inferable that the theft took place while the attendant was on duty but was moving cars or his attention was otherwise distracted.
Moreover, since the majority’s legal position seems to be that the leaving of the key in the car and the foreseeable consequences therefrom give rise to the duty of care which it would impose on the car owner, the presence or absence of an attendant on the lot would not be controlling and would only make the car owner’s conduct less negligent or more negligent.
Many parking lots require that the keys be left with the car in order to facilitate the business of the lot. Absent an extreme situation, not here shown, I would hold that a car owner who parks her car in a parking lot and leaves the key in the ignition at the direction of the attendant is not responsible as a matter of law for the consequences flowing from a theft of the car and its operation by the thief. I would hold that the parking lot requirement was the controlling causal factor.
Justices Mountain and Pashman join in this opinion.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice Hughes and Justices Clifford, Schreiber and Handler — 4.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part — Justices Mountain, Sullivan and Pashman — 3.