Available now(424) 235-7879
Call now

Parking garage and parking lot attacksWhat the owner knew about that garage matters.

You may be able to sue after an attack in a California parking garage or lot when the owner, the operator or the security company could reasonably anticipate the crime and failed to take reasonable steps. Garages are not treated as dangerous by nature, so earlier attacks there, broken lights and failed gates or cameras usually decide the case.

Start the confidential form(424) 235-7879

Josh Kohanim, Esq.Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Published · Reviewed

In this guide

This page was checked against the statutes, the 2026 jury instructions and the cases it cites on November 11, 2026. It is one of the guides on our negligent security page, which covers crimes on property that an owner or business could have prevented. Every case depends on its own facts, and nothing here predicts the result of any one claim.

The rule for garages and lots

California's jury instruction on crime on property, CACI No. 1005 (2026 edition), says that a landlord or the owner of a business open to the public "must use reasonable care to protect" tenants, guests or patrons "from another person's criminal conduct on" the property "if the [owner/landlord] can reasonably anticipate that conduct." Whether that duty exists is decided by the judge; whether the steps the owner took were "adequate and reasonable under the circumstances" is decided by the jury.

A parking garage or lot that serves a store, an office building, a hospital, an apartment building or the public falls under the same rule. The question in each case is what the owner or operator knew about crime in that structure, and what reasonable step it skipped.

Possible defendants

When someone is attacked on property in California, the people who may be responsible include the property owner, the property management company, the security company and any business that controlled the area. Each may have its own liability insurance. California requires every licensed private patrol operator to keep commercial general liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 for any one loss or occurrence (Business and Professions Code section 7583.40). Whether a policy pays for a particular attack depends on its terms, so the policies must be obtained and read.

Garage owners and operators

Many garages have three companies behind them: the owner of the property, a parking operator that runs it under a contract, and a security company hired to patrol it. Control, not ownership alone, decides who owes the duty. The premises instruction, CACI No. 1000, covers a defendant that "owned/leased/occupied/controlled" the property, and "control alone is sufficient" (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, as quoted in CACI No. 1000). CACI No. 1002 adds that a person controls property it does not own or lease "when the person uses the property as if it were the person's own." A security company is judged by what it agreed to do, under the negligent undertaking rule in CACI No. 450C. Our guide to security guard and security company liability explains that rule.

The Sharon P. decision

The California Supreme Court's main garage case is Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181. A woman sued the owner and operator of an underground commercial garage after a stranger assaulted her there. There had been robberies at the bank on the ground floor, but no prior crimes in the garage itself. The Court refused to treat underground garages as "so inherently dangerous that, even in the absence of prior similar incidents, providing security guards will fall within the scope of a landowner's duty of care." It warned that a contrary rule would open "the door to virtually limitless litigation" over other kinds of property. Judgment went to the owner and operator. The garage's own history is what counts.

Guards and prior incidents

A garage owner is rarely required to post security guards unless violent crime has happened there before. The California Supreme Court held that the foreseeability needed for guards "rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises" (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666). Foreseeability means how predictable the attack was from what the owner knew. Earlier assaults or robberies inside the same structure, reported to the owner or operator, are the usual proof. Crime at a neighboring business is weaker proof. The Court said only that "It is possible" that immediate proximity to a substantially similar business with violent crime could supply the foreseeability, and it did not decide the point.

Lower-cost security measures

Cheaper measures need less warning than guards. The California Supreme Court said in Ann M. that where "the harm can be prevented by simple means, a lesser degree of foreseeability may be required." In Sharon P., the Court read an earlier garage case to require, "at most," what it called "minimal precautions" against crime, "i.e., maintaining operational security monitors and intercoms."

Parking garage security measures and the notice California cases describe for each
Measure in a garage or lotHow courts describe the burdenNotice usually neededAuthority
Security guards or roving patrols in a garageRarely, if ever, a minimal burdenPrior similar violent crime in that structureAnn M. (1993); Sharon P. (1999)
Working security monitors and intercoms in a garageMinimal precautionsLess than guards; the facts of the garage decideSharon P. (1999), describing an earlier garage case

Lighting and dark areas

Broken lights help a parking garage case only when the darkness helped the attacker. In Sharon P., the injured woman argued that dark areas gave her attacker places to hide, but the Court said the record "contains no evidence that her attacker actually used any of the darkened areas to facilitate his assault." The Court also said it was "questionable" whether better lighting, working cameras or patrols "would have been effective to protect against the type of violent assault that occurred here" (as quoted in Stokes v. Forty Niners Stadium Management Co., LLC (2025)). Photos of the dead fixtures, repair requests sent before the attack, and video or witness accounts placing the attacker in the dark area make the link.

Gate and camera failures

A broken gate, a dead camera or a call box that did not work is evidence of a lapse, but the injured person must also show it mattered. In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, an apartment complex case, the Supreme Court assumed the owners had failed to keep entrance gates locked. It still ruled for them, because the unknown attackers "also could have been tenants" who could open the gates. The plaintiff must show, "by nonspeculative evidence, some actual causal link" between the injury and the missing security. Gate and key card logs, camera footage of the entry point, and proof that the attacker had no access card are how that link is usually shown. An intercom or call box that would have brought help is judged the same way.

Commercial and apartment garages

A commercial garage at a store, office or medical building is judged under the business duty to patrons in CACI No. 1005. An apartment garage is a common area, and "A landlord generally owes a tenant the duty, arising out of their special relationship, to take reasonable measures to secure areas under the landlord's control against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties" (Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, as quoted in CACI No. 1005).

For apartments, Civil Code section 1941.3(a)(3) requires locking mechanisms on "the exterior doors that provide ingress or egress to common areas with access to dwelling units in multifamily developments." It does not require a door or gate where none existed on January 1, 1998, and a violation "shall not broaden, limit, or otherwise affect the duty of care owed by a landlord" (section 1941.3(d)). Our apartment and condo assaults guide covers residential gates.

City and county garages

A garage run by a public entity follows different rules. The entity is liable only where a statute provides for it, such as a dangerous condition of its property (Government Code section 835), and the crime alone is not one (Hayes v. State of California (1974) 11 Cal.3d 469). If a city, a county, the State, a school district, a transit agency or another public entity may be responsible, a written claim must first be presented to that entity within six months after the claim accrues (Government Code section 911.2). The lawsuit against the entity then has its own deadline: six months after a written rejection notice is delivered or mailed, or two years from the date the claim accrued if no written notice is given (Government Code section 945.6). The dates in any one case should be calculated by a lawyer.

Police records to request

The police records in a parking garage case can disappear on a schedule, so the requests should go out early and in writing. These are the main ones:

  • The police report for the attack. A crime victim can get the witness statements and diagrams in it (Government Code section 7923.605), unless release would endanger a witness or the investigation.
  • Police calls for service to the garage address. Agencies must make public "the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance" (Government Code section 7923.615).
  • 911 audio. City and county departments may destroy recordings of telephone and radio communications after 100 days (Government Code section 34090.6; section 26202.6).

Garage records to request

The garage's own records are held by the owner, the parking operator and the security company. Ask for these in writing:

  • Garage camera footage from the attack and the days before. No California statute we found sets a retention period for private cameras, so the system settings decide.
  • Gate, ticket, key card and intercom logs, which show whether a gate or door was working and how the attacker got in.
  • The garage's incident reports, security patrol logs and post orders, and work orders for lights, cameras, gates and call boxes.
  • The parking operator agreement and the security contract, which show who controlled the garage and what each company promised.

A preservation letter asks each company to keep these records before they are overwritten. Our negligent security evidence checklist lists who holds each one. Do not contact the attacker or approach the companies' staff yourself to collect evidence.

The attacker's share of fault

In California, a jury can assign part of the fault to the attacker. Each defendant pays only its own share of noneconomic damages, such as pain and emotional distress (Civil Code section 1431.2), and a Court of Appeal has applied that rule to a bar whose patron was assaulted by a third person (Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1). Economic damages, such as medical bills and lost earnings, are not divided this way.

In a parking garage case, the owner, the operator and the security company can each be given a share, and the attacker usually carries the largest one. Our guides to when the attacker is mostly at fault and insurance and who pays explain how that affects the recovery.

Filing deadlines

Most California injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of the injury (Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1). Some claims have more time, including claims based on a sexual assault, explained in our guide to sexual assault on someone else's property. Our negligent security deadlines guide lists each period, and the deadline calculator gives a starting estimate. If someone died, our wrongful death page explains who can bring the claim. Falls and other hazards in a garage are covered on our premises liability page.

Talk to a lawyer about a parking garage attack.

No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs.

Get a free case review

Sources cited

Frequently asked questions

Can I sue a parking garage if I was attacked there in California?
You may be able to, if the owner, the operator or a security company could reasonably anticipate the attack and failed to take a reasonable step (CACI No. 1005). The California Supreme Court held in Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) that garages are not inherently dangerous, so prior crimes in that garage and known broken lights, gates or cameras usually decide whether a claim is strong.
Who is responsible for an attack in a parking structure, the owner or the parking company?
Either or both, depending on who controlled the garage. California's premises instruction treats control as enough for responsibility (CACI No. 1000, quoting Alcaraz v. Vece (1997)). The owner, the parking operator and any security company can each be a defendant, and the operator agreement and security contract show who was in charge of lights, gates, cameras and patrols.
Does a parking garage have to have security guards?
Usually not without earlier violent crime in that garage. The California Supreme Court said the foreseeability needed for guards rarely, if ever, exists without prior similar incidents of violent crime on the premises (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993)), and it refused to treat underground garages as inherently dangerous (Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999)). Cheaper measures, such as working monitors and intercoms, may be owed on less.
Is a garage liable if the lights were out when I was attacked?
Only if the darkness helped cause the attack. In Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999), the California Supreme Court noted there was no evidence the attacker used the dark areas. Repair requests made before the attack, photos of the dead lights, and video or witnesses placing the attacker in the dark area are what connect broken lighting to the injury.
What should I ask the garage to keep after an attack?
Ask in writing for camera footage, gate and key card logs, incident reports, patrol logs and work orders for lights and cameras. No California statute we found requires a private garage to keep its video for a set time, so the request should go out quickly. Ask the police agency for the report and the 911 recording, which a city department may destroy after 100 days.
What if the garage belongs to a city or county?
A written claim to the public entity is usually due within six months after the claim accrues (Government Code section 911.2), before any lawsuit. A public entity is liable only where a statute provides for it, such as a dangerous condition of its property (Government Code section 835), and the crime alone does not make the property dangerous. A lawyer should calculate the dates.
Have a question about your case?

Speak with an attorney. The review is free and you will get a direct answer.

(424) 235-7879

A confidential contact form

Any name, and one way to reach you. Nothing happens until you say so. A licensed attorney reads every message and reviews each confidential contact within one business day.

  • No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs
  • Confidential. You can stop at any point
  • Spanish-speaking staff answer the phone
Or call or text the firm directly(424) 235-7879

Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Text the same number if a call is not safe.

One is enough. Give a phone number, an email, or both.

Is it safe to call this number?
Do you already have a lawyer on this matter?
You are

The rest is optional. It helps the attorney prepare, and you can leave every line blank.

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is formed only by a signed written fee agreement. Prefer not to type? Call or text (424) 235-7879.

Call nowText us