## Facts

- The Parking Authority operated a large enclosed, controlled-access underground “park and lock” garage with multiple vehicle and pedestrian entry/exit points.
- Drivers obtained a ticket at entry, parked themselves, locked their cars, kept their keys, and paid at a toll booth to exit.
- Roger H. McGlynn parked a Mercedes-Benz convertible; he later found the top slashed and audio equipment and tapes stolen from inside the car.
- Michael A. Backer parked a Datsun 240Z; he later found hubcaps missing and the antenna broken.
- Plaintiffs sued the Authority for damage and theft, alleging failure to protect vehicles and contents from third-party criminal acts.
- An Authority supervisor testified attendants and police patrolled the garage, but acknowledged prior thefts and vandalism had occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether an operator of an enclosed, controlled-access “park and lock” garage owes a duty (via bailment or otherwise) to use reasonable care to protect vehicles and contents from foreseeable theft and vandalism by third parties.
2. Whether proof that a vehicle was delivered in good condition and returned damaged or missing contents permits a presumption or inference of negligence, shifting to the operator the burden of producing evidence of due care.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed judgments for both plaintiffs.
- The Authority owed a duty of reasonable care to protect vehicles and their contents against foreseeable criminal acts in the controlled-access facility it operated.
- Plaintiffs’ proof of delivery in good condition and return in damaged or missing condition supported an inference/presumption of negligence sufficient to submit liability to the jury.
- The presumption shifted to the Authority the burden of going forward with evidence of reasonable security and due care; it did not conclusively establish liability.

## Legal Principles

- A parking-garage operator with meaningful control over access to an enclosed facility must take reasonable security measures to protect patrons’ vehicles and contents from foreseeable third-party theft or vandalism.
- Foreseeability may be shown by prior similar incidents and the character of the premises and operation.
- In bailment-like settings, when the bailor shows delivery in good condition and unexplained return in damaged or missing condition, an inference/presumption of negligence arises.
- The presumption shifts to the defendant the burden of producing evidence of due care, while the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion.

## Conclusion

The court held that a controlled-access garage operator must use reasonable care to guard against foreseeable criminal interference with parked cars and their contents, and that unexplained damage or theft after delivery supports an inference of negligence requiring the operator to produce evidence of due care; the jury verdicts for the patrons were affirmed.


McGlynn v. Parking Auth. of City of Newark, 86 N.J. 551, 432 A.2d 99 (N.J. 1981)