Berrios v. United Parcel Service
627 A.2d 701, 265 N.J. Super. 436 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer owes a duty to its employees to take reasonable steps to protect their property from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties in an employer-provided parking lot. A general disclaimer of liability posted on the premises is ineffective to negate this duty due to public policy considerations and the unequal bargaining power between the parties.
Facts:
- Sally J. Berrios was an employee of United Parcel Service (UPS) and parked her car in the employee parking lot provided by the company.
- UPS was aware of several prior incidents of vandalism and theft of employee automobiles in the parking lot, including one event where twenty-two cars were vandalized in one day.
- UPS posted a sign at the entrance to the employee parking lot stating that it would not be liable for any damage to or theft of vehicles or their contents.
- While Berrios was at work on February 3, 1992, her car was vandalized by an unknown person in the UPS employee parking lot.
- UPS had installed fencing and employed security guards to continuously monitor its own vehicles, trucks, and buildings, which were adjacent to the employee parking lot.
- The security provided for the employee lot consisted of patrols by employees approximately once an hour.
- Berrios testified that she was not aware of the sign disclaiming liability.
Procedural Posture:
- Sally J. Berrios sued United Parcel Service and Spectra Guard in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, which is a court of first instance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer have a duty to use reasonable care to protect an employee's vehicle from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties in an employer-provided parking lot, and is a posted sign disclaiming liability effective in negating that duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Vogelson, J.S.C.
Yes, an employer has a duty of reasonable care, and no, a posted sign is not effective in negating that duty. The court held that an employee is an invitee on the employer's premises, and the employer owes a duty to use reasonable care to make the premises safe. This duty extends to protecting against the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Because UPS was on notice of prior criminal acts in the parking lot, the vandalism to Berrios's car was foreseeable. The court found no significant difference between a commercial parking lot operator and an employer providing a lot essential for its business operations, holding that the employer is better situated to protect vehicles and distribute the costs of protection. UPS's measures were not reasonable, especially compared to the security for its own property. The exculpatory sign was deemed ineffective, first because Berrios was unaware of it and thus did not agree to its terms, and second because such a clause would be void as against public policy due to the unequal bargaining power between an employer and employee.
Analysis:
This decision extends the principles of premises liability for the foreseeable criminal acts of third parties to the employer-employee relationship in the context of an employer-provided parking lot. It establishes that a "free" parking lot provided for the benefit of the business subjects the employer to the same duty of care as a commercial lot operator. The ruling significantly curtails the effectiveness of exculpatory clauses in employment settings, reinforcing the public policy against allowing dominant parties to contract away liability for their own negligence where there is unequal bargaining power. This case serves as a precedent for holding employers accountable for security in areas they control and provide for their employees.
