Overflow Parking Accidents- Is the Venue Liable?

Your synagogue or church hosts an event using overflow parking lots away from the premises.  Someone gets hurt going from the parking lot to the venue.  Is the synagogue or church responsible?That was the question the California Supreme Court decided in Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church.  (I note that I previously discussed this case when it was decided by the California Court of Appeal. Since the Supreme Court overturned that decision, I now hereby overturn my previous blog post on the topic!)Mr. Vasilenko was attending a church function in November 2010.  The church’s main parking lot was full.  An attendant directed him to park across the street at a vacant parking lot. The lot was across 5 lanes of traffic, with no marked crosswalk.  As Mr. Vasilenko crossed the busy thoroughfare, he was hit and injured by a passing car.He argued that the church was responsible because the arrangement with the rented parking lot created a foreseeable risk of harm to patrons attending church events who were required to park at the overflow lot.The lower court dismissed Mr. Vasilenko’s case, concluding that the church did not owe any duties because it did not own the adjacent overflow parking lot.The Court of Appeal reversed.  The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal ruling, essentially reinstating the decision of the trial court.The Supreme Court provided a lengthy analysis of landowner duties and liabilities in this case, which will serve as important precedent in cases like these.  The Court concluded that it was foreseeable that someone like Mr. Vasilenko could be injured traveling from the parking lot to the venue.  But foreseeability alone is not enough to impose a duty on the church, per the decades-old case of Rowland v. Christian.The Supreme Court concluded in holding that a landowner who does no more than site and maintain a parking lot that requires invitees to cross a public street to reach the landowner's premises does not owe a duty to protect those invitees from obvious dangers on a public street. (Vasilenko, at 16.)The outcome could be different, the Court noted, if the landowner magnifies the risk of harm to invitees.Vasilenko will set important precedent.   The ruling has special application for a city like Los Angeles--where entertainment venues frequently use overflow parking to accommodate patrons attending events.These cases are highly fact-specific.  For questions about your Los Angeles overflow parking lot or automobile accident case, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6!