Rented private parking spot, Car burglarized, Suing property owner

[condo_renter9]

This is in Washington, DC.

I pay a lady $115 a month to park my car in the backyard of her townhouse. This is a private, off street parking space that she owns.

After 1 month of parking there, my bike was stolen that I had chained up to a tree next to my parking spot. I thought OK, not a big deal.

After 2 months (early June, about a week ago), I come back to my car and the passenger side window is smashed, stereo is removed, and other miscellaneous things were stolen out of the car.

I am requesting the owner of the spot refund my $115 June parking rent. She refuses to, and I think this is unfair.
Some other information: this was a verbal agreement to parking my car there/pay her every month. I found the ad through craigslist. Also, since I have informed I am leaving the spot I assumed she is advertising it on craigslist again. I did a quick search, and found her ad. In the ad for the parking spot, she describes the spot as “safe”. While I don’t have the original ad that I replied to, I assume it also said the spot was “safe”.

My question is, could I take her to small claims court and get payback for damages to my car and stolen bike (around $500), or would this be a lost cause?
Thanks!

 

[Zigner]

Did she steal the bike?

 

[condo_renter9]

Did she steal the bike?

No, she didn't steal the bike (that I know of, I have no reason to believe she would). She didn't break into the car either. But it was on her property, and I feel like she probably knows that stuff happens in her backyard, so I feel like its bunk that she can advertise it as "safe" and then play stupid when this happens.

 

[sandyclaus]

...I found the ad through craigslist. Also, since I have informed I am leaving the spot I assumed she is advertising it on craigslist again. I did a quick search, and found her ad. In the ad for the parking spot, she describes the spot as “safe”. While I don’t have the original ad that I replied to, I assume it also said the spot was “safe”.

No, she didn't steal the bike (that I know of, I have no reason to believe she would). She didn't break into the car either. But it was on her property, and I feel like she probably knows that stuff happens in her backyard, so I feel like its bunk that she can advertise it as "safe" and then play stupid when this happens.

In your own words, you don't know that she advertised it as "safe" before now.

And regardless of how you feel, a lot of things happen in a lot of people's backyard. It doesn't guarantee that the backyard - or your parking space - was secure from theft and vandalism.

My question is, could I take her to small claims court and get payback for damages to my car and stolen bike (around $500), or would this be a lost cause?
Thanks!

Sure, if she is able to re-rent the parking space before the end of the month, you could argue you might be entitled to a partial refund (because it would be illegal to double-dip). But if she doesn't, then you don't get your money back. And you most DEFINITELY are not entitled to reimbursement for the bike and damages to your car, because she did not cause these damages nor steal from you.

 

[Zigner]

No, she didn't steal the bike (that I know of, I have no reason to believe she would). She didn't break into the car either. But it was on her property, and I feel like she probably knows that stuff happens in her backyard, so I feel like its bunk that she can advertise it as "safe" and then play stupid when this happens.

IMO, you have no case.

 

[condo_renter9]

But aren't people responsible for what happens on their property? Could I not sue her if I walked into her house and slipped on a puddle and broke my neck? Doesn't that sort of thing happen all the time?

I feel like there is a parallel between personal injury and damages to personal property on someone else's private property. Am I incorrect in this logic?

 

[justalayman]

did the owner have a duty to ensure your vehicle was not broken into? No.

was her advertisement claiming it was "safe" enough to be considered a guarantee? Nope. Safe is both a subjection determination as well as relative. Either one is going to be able to be used to defend the term, even if she did make the statement.


You have no case against anybody except the people that broke the window.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

If she knew, or should have known that your car would be broken into, you have a chance of recovering.

I don't see how, based on what you have posted, you would prove that she should have known that an illegal act would occur.

 

[condo_renter9]

If she knew, or should have known that your car would be broken into, you have a chance of recovering.

I don't see how, based on what you have posted, you would prove that she should have known that an illegal act would occur.

So say I found police reports that cited her address with multiple "Theft from Vehicle" reports over the last year. Would that be enough evidence to show that she knew what happens in her backyard?

 

[Zigner]

So say I found police reports that cited her address with multiple "Theft from Vehicle" reports over the last year. Would that be enough evidence to show that she knew what happens in her backyard?

That's the type of thing you need to research BEFORE renting the spot.

 

[swalsh411]

No. "safe" is puffery and subjective. Is your car safer there then in a bad neighborhood parked on the street? Probably. Is it safer then in a locked garage with armed guards? Probably not. You will not be successfull in suing a person for what you believe is inaacurate puffery.

If you could prove she told a person she knew liked to steal bikes and stereos to come over and help themselves then she would be an accomplice to the crime. Otherwise she is not responsible.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

So say I found police reports that cited her address with multiple "Theft from Vehicle" reports over the last year. Would that be enough evidence to show that she knew what happens in her backyard?

It might be. That would be up to a court to decide.

Also, I haven't found anything to indicate that premises liability in DC extends to property. DC courts have held landlords liable for personal injuries inflicted by criminals that the landlord knew, or should have known, would happen without additional security measures.

If you google "washington dc premises liability theft" , you'll see an expert witness you can hire to demonstrate that the landlord should have known the theft would occur.

 

[sandyclaus]

So say I found police reports that cited her address with multiple "Theft from Vehicle" reports over the last year. Would that be enough evidence to show that she knew what happens in her backyard?

If you could find police reports with her address that show multiple "Theft from Vehicle" reports over the last year, then this information would have been easily discoverable BEFORE you rented the parking space.

And just because she may have been aware of thefts that occurred in her backyard DOESN'T make her responsible for them.

Unless she was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE (i.e., SHE did it, she hired someone to do it, or she otherwise knew for absolute certainty that it was going to happen to you and did nothing about it), you CANNOT hold her legally liable for the damages.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Not to belabor the obvious, but the "know or should have known" part is just the first step of the analysis. Even if there was a history of crime in that backyard, that, in and of itself, does not automatically make the LL liable for all future crimes. (No one has even brought up the breach issue yet?!)

 

[justalayman]

(No one has even brought up the breach issue yet?!)

breach of?