How have courts interpreted the "special circumstances" doctrine in parking lots?

The second of the decisions finding "special circumstances," Enders v. Apcoa, Inc. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 897, 127 Cal.Rptr. 751, used questionable reasoning and stretched the "special circumstances" doctrine too far. In [12 Cal.App.4th 231] Enders, the defendant company routinely parked cars in its Beverly Hills parking lot with keys in the ignitions. During a police chase more than 24 hours after the theft, the stolen car, driven by a minor, collided with the plaintiff police officer's vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the parking lot defendant. On appeal, the Enders court reversed.

After a review of decisional law, Enders enumerated the "special circumstances" plaintiff claimed were present in the case. First was the community knowledge that parking lots in general and this lot in particular require that patrons leave their keys in their vehicles so that attendants may move them. Second was the fact that only one attendant was on duty at a time, which "under certain circumstances [would] be as ineffectual in guarding against theft as no attendant at all." (Enders v. Apcoa, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 904, 127 Cal.Rptr. 751.) Third was evidence of 12 vehicle thefts from defendant's 68 parking lots over a 3-year

Page 718

Without determining the validity of plaintiff's evidence, the Enders court concluded that these alleged facts were adequate to present the question of negligence. (Enders v. Apcoa, Inc., supra, 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 905, 127 Cal.Rptr. 751.) Thus, at this stage of its discussion, the court appeared to find, based on unproven allegations, that the defendant had a duty to protect motorists from injury by drivers who might steal cars from the defendant's lot.