QUESTION:
Hello Ken,
I have had a couple of customers ask if there is an increase in liability for them if they install CCTV. One customer's corporate office will not install cameras unless the video is monitored 24/7.
If cameras are installed and someone is attacked or their property is stolen what is the legal responsibility/liability of the owner? Thank You,
Jim Robinson
The Bowan Company
******************************
ANSWER:
Building owners have legitimate concerns regarding the installation of cameras. But that same concern should exist no matter what type of security measure is employed by the property owner. Cameras do not pose any greater exposure for increased liability.
Increased exposure is a function of perception and expectation. Those coming onto the premises, whether they be tenants or visitors, all those lawfully on the property, should be able to rely upon security measures that reasonably appear to be intended for their protection.
Perhaps an easier example is a posted security guard. He sits in the lobby of a residential building. His instructions limit him to sitting behind his desk. If there is any problem his action is limited to picking up a telephone and calling 911. Does this limitation expose the guard company or the owner? A tenant is accosted in a mail room or laundry room and her shouts are heard by the guard. Maybe he has a CCTV picture of what is going on. He does not leave his desk. He promptly calls 911. By the time the cops get there the situation is over and the tenant suffers severe damages.
Although you may be drawing certain conclusions, you don't have sufficient information. Does your conclusion change if I change the facts? There are signs at the desk and posted around the building that the guard will not leave his desk and will only alert the police. The injured tenant testifies that she has lived in the building for years and never saw a posted guard leave the desk. Or, she testifies that the guard frequently leaves the desk, patrols the lobby and building, and on occasion has intervened in altercations and illegal activity. So the answer depends upon the tenant's, or public's, perception of that security the guard actually provides, and what expectation the tenant or public can reasonably expect.
Cameras have the same analysis. Covert cameras unknown to the tenants would offer little expectation of security, unless of course the owner represented to the tenants that the covert cameras where there and the building was secure for their safety. Highly visible cameras can raise the level of expectation, and therefore the exposure of liability. Installers need to be careful to point out limitations in the security they provide, for both equipment and services. You should not take for granted that your subscribers understand the limitations of their systems or your services. You would be surprised how naive these subscribers become when they suffer a loss and blame it on your equipment or services not living up to their expectations. They perceive your security as preventative, not merely as a deterrent. I will take this opportunity to again urge you to use the Disclaimer Notice which you get at www.alarmcontracts.com. That will help defend against claims of expectation from your subscribers.
So should owners take the posture that it's better to provide no security rather than risk some? Better to have no cameras then those not watched? Better to have no burglar alarm then pay for UL certified AA? The answer is of course not. First of all, some level of security may be required by law. For example, fire alarms are required in many buildings. Access control with intercoms are often required in multiple dwellings. You need to know the statutory requirements for your systems. But there may be legal requirements that are not as clear. Property owners in high crime areas are required to provide more security then property owners in areas where crime frequency is low. Again, its a matter of expectation. Why would a property owner whose building is next to a police station, where there has been no reported crime in 50 years, need to invest in elaborate security systems and posted guards? But a building owner in an area where crimes are a daily happening needs to provide protect in to those lawfully in and on the premises, because that is a requirement for building owners. The building owner's security obligation has a direct correlation to the risk associated with the building. High risk, more security; less risk, less security. Though the loss and damage to a victim may be the same in either location, the building owner will face a different standard for the measure of the security before liability is imposed.
As the security professional don't increase your own exposure because your subscriber limited you to a budget that paid for less than what you would have liked to recommend for adequate security. That limitation belongs in your contract terms and it belongs in the Disclaimer Notice.