Landlord Liability for Car Break-Ins: What PMs Must Know

^{Melinda McBeth is a litigator at Offit Kurman who has spent eight years representing landlords and property management companies in matters that relate to residential and commercial real property, including lease construction, fair housing disputes, administrative agency complaints, breach of contract defense and civil litigation. She’s a certified legal professional for security awareness, and a frequent contributor to the Landlord Legal Lowdown.}

‍

‍

_{Reposted with permission of Offit/Kurman}

‍

Car break-ins are the number one security concern for multifamily property managers nationwide — and they create real legal exposure. But liability isn't automatic. What courts focus on is not whether a crime happened on your property, but whether you acted reasonably given what you knew. Here is what that means in practice.

‍

What Does "Reasonable Care" Actually Require in a Parking Garage?

Reasonable care does not mean guaranteeing safety. It means acting as a reasonably prudent property manager would under similar circumstances, given the known and foreseeable risks of a parking facility. Courts generally expect owners and managers to:

• Inspect the premises with reasonable frequency
• Maintain structural surfaces — ramps, guardrails, stairs, wheel stops
• Address common hazards such as oil accumulation and uneven pavement
• Provide adequate lighting in stairwells, pedestrian paths, and entrances
• Post warnings when hazards cannot be immediately corrected
• Ensure compliance with local building codes and ADA requirements
• Implement reasonable security measures when criminal activity is foreseeable

The central question courts ask is: was the risk known or recurring? Plaintiffs must show the property manager had actual or constructive notice — meaning they knew, or should have known through reasonable inspections. The longer a hazard exists unaddressed, the stronger the constructive notice argument becomes.

One important exception: the open and obvious doctrine holds that owners are typically not liable for dangers a reasonable person would recognize — such as a clearly visible gate arm. However, liability can still attach to open and obvious hazards if an owner should have anticipated harm despite the hazard being visible.

‍

If a Crime Occurs and We Didn't Know About It, Are We Still Liable?

The short answer: possibly yes, if the crime was reasonably foreseeable. Prior criminal activity on or near the property is the most powerful evidence of foreseeability — and it can establish liability even when a property manager was unaware of an earlier incident.

"You might not be liable for the first break-in. But the tenth? That's where foreseeability comes in." — Melinda McBeth

• Prior similar crimes on the property are the strongest evidence of foreseeability
• Nearby crime does not automatically establish foreseeability — courts reject generalized 'high crime area' arguments
• Analysis is crime-specific: prior theft does not automatically make an assault foreseeable
• Prior violent crimes are more likely to trigger security duties than minor property crimes

‍

Does Having — or Not Having — Security Cameras Change Your Exposure?

Cameras are one factor among many — having them does not automatically increase liability, and not having them does not automatically create it. However, how you manage cameras matters enormously.

When camera absence increases exposure:

• Prior similar crimes existed on the property
• Cameras are considered industry standard for similar properties in your area
• The garage has known blind spots or poor sightlines
• You previously had cameras and removed or failed to repair them

When cameras create new duties:

• Installing cameras creates a duty to keep them in working condition
• If you market monitored cameras to residents, courts expect real monitoring practices
• Footage that contradicts witness testimony or reveals delayed response can be used against you

Commitment to security cameras should be approached like a drive-thru — once you're in, operating in reverse is a bad idea. Removing cameras that were previously present or failing to repair them after incidents is one of the fastest ways to escalate liability exposure.

On the positive side, cameras can establish that an incident was sudden and unforeseeable, that no suspicious activity preceded it, that adequate lighting and visibility existed, and that management responded promptly.

‍

What Documentation Practices Most Effectively Protect Property Managers in Litigation?

The best documentation does three things simultaneously: shows reasonable systems existed before an incident, proves management lacked notice of the hazard (or responded reasonably once notified), and prevents credibility attacks after the fact.

Incident Reports:

• Complete as soon as practicable — same day is best
• Record lighting conditions, weather, visibility, gate and camera status
• Record what was observed — not inferred, not concluded
• Never include opinions, liability conclusions, apologies, or speculation about fault

Maintenance Records:

• Inspection logs should be timestamped and identify areas both inspected and found clear
• Work orders must log the date reported, not just the repair date
• Capture priority level, reasoning, and any interim mitigation (cones, signage, temporary lighting)
• When a vendor makes recommendations, document receipt, response, and any rejection with reason

After a serious incident: immediately preserve surveillance footage, lock relevant logs, and issue internal preservation notices. Assume every email and text message is discoverable in litigation. Never write 'this could be bad for us' or 'we messed up.' Losses typically stem not from the incident itself, but from documentation that suggests knowledge, delay, or indifference.

‍

When Does a Broken Gate or Burnt-Out Light Become a Legal Liability?

Deferred maintenance crosses into legal liability when it creates a foreseeable, unreasonable risk that the owner knew or should have known about and failed to address within a reasonable time. The key factors are time, notice, and risk escalation.

A broken gate is frequently viewed by courts and juries as worse than no gate at all — because it demonstrates that the owner recognized the risk and then failed to mitigate it.

Brief lapses due to unforeseen circumstances are generally defensible. The longer an issue persists, the harder it becomes to argue the absence of constructive notice. Courts place heavy weight on work-order logs, incident reports, emails acknowledging problems, and failure to follow vendor recommendations.

‍

Third-Party Crime vs. Crime by a Resident: How Does Liability Differ?

‍

The critical takeaway: once you have credible notice that a resident poses a danger — whether through prior police calls, formal complaints, or documented domestic disturbances — doing nothing is what creates exposure. Consistent enforcement of lease provisions and coordination with law enforcement are essential.

‍

What Insurance Gaps Surface After a Parking Lot Incident?

Insurance rarely eliminates exposure — it reshapes it. The most dangerous gaps appear in ways no one anticipated before the incident:

• CGL policies may exclude assault and battery claims, or decline coverage when plaintiffs frame the case as 'conscious disregard' or 'knowing indifference'
• E&O policies frequently exclude bodily injury and property damage, and often exclude security-related failures
• Umbrella coverage has its own exclusions and may require exhaustion of covered losses first
• Additional insured coverage is almost always narrower than policyholders assume
• Indemnity language without collectible insurance on the vendor's side is effectively worthless

The strongest insurance position is built before incidents occur — by aligning indemnity language with actual policy terms, reviewing assault and security exclusions annually, and confirming defense-cost treatment across all layers of coverage.

‍

What Do Catastrophic Liability Cases Have in Common?

Nuclear verdicts are not won because a property had a defect or because a crime occurred. They are won when juries conclude the incident was preventable, the owner knew about the risk, and chose indifference over action. Once negligence becomes a character narrative, verdicts escalate exponentially.

• Surveillance footage that contradicts witness testimony
• Internal logs that differ from emails or other informal communications
• Witnesses who are unprepared or deny obvious problems at deposition
• Sympathetic or apologetic statements in writing before litigation

By the time it becomes obvious a nuclear verdict is on the horizon, it is too late. Juries will retaliate once credibility is broken. Complacency after past court victories is one of the most dangerous positions a property manager can occupy.

‍

Can Improving Security After an Incident Be Used Against You?

Generally, no. Under federal evidence rules, post-incident safety improvements are not admissible to prove prior negligence. This protection covers better lighting, upgraded cameras, enhanced access controls, and new security protocols.

Important exceptions:

• Plaintiffs may introduce post-incident improvements to show feasibility — if a defendant previously claimed a measure was not practicable
• Improvements can be used for impeachment if a witness testified conditions were already optimal

Frame all upgrades in the language of enhancement, operational improvement, and system modernization — not correction of past failures. Fix the problem, but never explain the fix in a way that admits prior operations were unreasonable. Delaying upgrades out of fear of liability backfires more often than upgrading does.

‍

_{Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided reflects general legal principles and may not apply to your specific jurisdiction or circumstances. Consult a qualified attorney for advice on your particular situation.}

‍

‍