Sued For Not Having Enough Surveillance

By: Carlton Purvis, Published on Apr 05, 2013

When someone is attacked on private property, how responsible is the venue? In past US cases, decisions have varied. Sometimes the courts find owners responsible for failing to take basic precautions, in others they decided it is not a contributing factor to an attack

One prominent California court case is frequently used as a justification for why more surveillance is critical but the final outcome has never been reported. We investigated, talking to a lawyer involved about what happened when a woman sued a mall and its security company for insufficient surveillance after a violent attack.

Background

A woman was stabbed, and her shoulder dislocated in an attempted kidnapping in a San Diego mall parking deck. She then sued both the mall and its security company for negligence. A nearby surveillance camera captured the attack but the images did not produce any useable evidence. A guard did come up the ramp, as part of his 30 minute rounds, just as the attacker fled. A man was arrested for the crime and identified by multiple eyewitnesses, but was eventually released for lack of evidence [link no longer available].

In court, she argued the attack was foreseeable given recent mall crimes. She also said the mall should have increased security cameras and patrols. The defendants argued there was no way they could have foreseen the violent attack she experienced and that the security in place was sufficient for both the location and the types of crimes happening in the area.

Court Rulings

In 2009, a superior court judge ruled in favor of the defendants, agreeing that an attack was not foreseeable. However, in March 2011, an appeals court ruled the case should be decided by trial. And then the case drops completely out of the headlines.

Here’s what happened since that ruling 

A couple months before the trial the mall settled for an undisclosed sum (a stipulated judgement). The case against the security company was tried in January 2012 and took two to three weeks for a verdict, says the plaintiff’s lawyer, Ben Siminou

Siminou said he thought for sure the security company would be found negligent because when he played the surveillance tape, the jurors were laughing at the terrible quality of the surveillance video. They could not believe such poor video was being used to protect the mall, he said. 

To his surprise, the plaintiff lost in a 10-2 decision. Only two jurors felt the security company was negligent. Siminou later interviewed the jurors and found that most had a hard time believing that more surveillance cameras in the parking lot would have kept the attack from happening, noting the attack happened in a camera's line of sight.

IPVM Analysis

This case is consistent with other US judgments we have seen for not having enough surveillance. The key factor cited is the disbelief that more surveillance would have prevented or stopped the crime.

We cite two related cases in a recent discussion: In a 1997 article, a Canadian attorney writes cautiously about the use dummy cameras, but finds that the potential liability of dummy cameras may not be as high as that of a broken 'call-for-help' button or other technology meant to illicit an immediate response. Indeed, that article is the source of the 'rape under a dummy camera' urban legend.

A 2004 case shows minor liability for a storage facility that had signs indicating surveillance without having any surveillance at all. A customer sued after his storage unit was burglarized and was awarded the difference between renting storage unit with surveillance vs without -- a trivial sum. Similar to the San Diego case above, the court did not find the surveillance to be a major factor noting, "a camera would not have prevented the theft because the theft occurred with signs saying there were cameras."

Comments (3) : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

Austria’s First GDPR Fine Is For Video Surveillance on Jan 29, 2019
Should EU businesses be concerned if police see a business' surveillance cameras filming public areas? This is what happened with Austria’s first...
Verified Response Discontinued in Silicon Valley San Jose on Feb 28, 2019
Almost all security alarms are false. This has driven some municipalities to require verified response before dispatching police. However, now San...
US City Sued For Hiding Surveillance Camera Map on Mar 08, 2019
UPDATE: The judgment is now in and updated information is at the bottom of the post. Should maps of public surveillance camera locations be kept...
Verkada Wins $783,000 Memphis Deal on Apr 29, 2019
The US city, most famous in video surveillance for standardizing on Hikvision, has issued an RFQ for 962 Verkada cameras due Wednesday, May 1,...
San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined on May 14, 2019
San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few...
Kidnapping Victim Rescued With Video From Ring Doorbell Camera on May 24, 2019
A kidnapping victim was rescued within 24 hours, with the police crediting video from a Ring Doorbell camera as key to solving the case. A girl was...
First Video Surveillance GDPR Fine In France on Jul 08, 2019
The French government has imposed a sizeable fine on a small business for violating the GDPR after it constantly filmed employees without informing...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
First GDPR Facial Recognition Fine For Sweden School on Aug 22, 2019
A school in Sweden has been fined $20,000 for using facial recognition to keep attendance in what is Sweden's first GDPR fine. Notably, the fine is...
Covert Elevator Face Recognition on Oct 24, 2019
Covert elevator facial recognition has the potential to solve the cost and complexity of elevator surveillance while engendering immense privacy...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Every VMS Will Become a VSaaS on Feb 21, 2020
VMS is ending. Soon every VMS will be a VSaaS. Competitive dynamics will be redrawn. What does this mean? VMS Historically...
Video Surveillance 101 Course - Last Chance on Feb 20, 2020
This is the last chance to join IPVM's first Video Surveillance 101 course, designed to help those new to the industry to quickly understand the...
Vulnerability Directory For Access Credentials on Feb 20, 2020
Knowing which access credentials are insecure can be difficult to see, especially because most look and feel the same. Even insecure 125 kHz...
AI/Smart Camera Tutorial on Feb 20, 2020
Cameras with video analytics, sometimes called 'Smart' camera or 'AI' cameras, etc. are one of the most promising growth areas of video...
China Manufacturer Suffers Coronavirus Scare on Feb 20, 2020
Uniview suffered a significant health scare last week after one of its employees reported a fever and initially tested positive for coronavirus....
Cheap Camera Problems at Night on Feb 19, 2020
Cheap cameras generally have problems at night, despite the common perception that integrated IR makes cameras mostly the same, according to new...
Milestone Launches Multiple Cloud Solutions on Feb 18, 2020
Milestone is going to the cloud, becoming one of the last prominent VMSes to do so. Milestone is clearly late but how competitive do these new...
Video Surveillance Architecture 101 on Feb 18, 2020
Video surveillance can be designed and deployed in a number of ways. This 101 examines the most common options and architectures used in...
UK Stands Behind Hikvision But Controversy Continues on Feb 18, 2020
Hikvision is exhibiting at a UK government conference for law enforcement, provoking controversy from the press, politicians, and activists due to...
IronYun AI Analytics Tested on Feb 17, 2020
Taiwan startup IronYun has raised tens of millions for its "mission to be the leading Artificial Intelligence, big data video software as a service...