## Facts

- Judith A. Yaskin parked her car in a Camden, New Jersey lot operated by Camden Parking Services, Inc., located in a high-crime area near her law office.
- As a monthly customer, Yaskin left the ignition key in the car so attendants could move it; no reserved space was provided.
- The lot closed at 5:00 p.m.; cars remaining after closing were left unlocked, with keys left inside or placed under the floor mat or over the visor.
- When Yaskin returned around 7:30–8:00 p.m., the car was missing and she reported it stolen.
- The next day, Camden police officer William E. Hill, on patrol, saw the stolen car being driven by “youngsters,” pursued it, and was injured when the pursuit ended in a collision.
- Hill and his wife sued Yaskin and Camden Parking, alleging negligence for leaving the vehicle accessible to theft by leaving keys in or readily available in an unattended car.

## Issues

1. Whether a vehicle owner and/or commercial parking lot operator owes a duty of reasonable care to third parties injured by a thief’s negligent operation of a stolen vehicle when keys are left in or readily accessible to the vehicle in a high-crime area.
2. Whether the theft and subsequent collision were reasonably foreseeable and within the scope of risk such that proximate cause could be found despite the intervening criminal act.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed on negligence and causation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the trial court and Appellate Division judgments granting summary judgment to both defendants.
- The Court held that, on this record, foreseeability and proximate cause presented jury questions as to both the owner and the parking lot operator.
- The Court rejected an inflexible rule that a thief’s intervening criminal act automatically breaks causation in “keys left in car” cases.
- The case was remanded for trial for a jury to determine negligence and proximate cause.

## Legal Principles

- Duty, foreseeability, and proximate cause in stolen-vehicle negligence cases are fact-dependent and may not be resolved as a matter of law when reasonable inferences support liability.
- Leaving a vehicle unlocked with keys in or predictably accessible—especially as a routine practice and in a high-crime area—can support a finding that theft and subsequent negligent operation are reasonably foreseeable risks.
- An intervening criminal act does not necessarily supersede prior negligence when that criminal act is among the hazards that make the defendant’s conduct potentially unreasonable.
- Summary judgment is improper where deposition testimony and surrounding circumstances create genuine disputes about the reasonableness of the defendants’ conduct and the foreseeability of resulting harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that a car owner and a parking lot operator may face negligence liability when their practices make theft reasonably foreseeable and the resulting injury falls within the scope of risk, requiring a jury—rather than summary judgment—to decide breach and proximate cause on the facts presented.


Hill v. Yaskin, 75 N.J. 139 (1977)