Sued For Not Having Enough Surveillance

By Carlton Purvis, Published Apr 05, 2013, 12:00am EDT (Info+)

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.

**********

* ***** *** *******, *** *** shoulder ********** ** ** ********* ********** in * *** ***** **** ******* deck. *** **** **** **** *** **** *** *** security ******* *** **********. * ****** ************ ****** ******** the ********* *** ****** *** *** ******* any ******* ********. * ***** *** come ** *** ****, ** **** of *** ** ****** ******, **** as *** ******** ****. * *** was ******** *** *** ***** *** identified ** ******** ************, *** *** eventually******** *** **** ** ******** [**** no ****** *********].

*******, *** ****** *** ****** *** foreseeable ***** ****** **** ******. *** also **** *** **** ****** **** increased ******** ******* *** *******. *** defendants ****** ***** *** ** *** they ***** **** ******** *** ******* attack *** *********** *** **** *** security ** ***** *** ********** *** both *** ******** *** *** ***** of ****** ********* ** *** ****.

Court *******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 ***** *** **** ****** ** ******* by *****. *** **** *** **** ***** completely *** ** *** *********.

Here’s **** ******** ***** **** ****** 

* ****** ****** ****** *** ***** the **** ******* *** ** *********** sum (* ********** *********). *** **** ******* *** ******** company *** ***** ** ******* **** and **** *** ** ***** ***** for * *******, **** *** *********’* lawyer,**********

*********** ** ******* *** **** *** security ******* ***** ** ***** ********* because **** ** ****** *** ************ tape, *** ****** **** ******** ** the ******** ******* ** *** ************ video. **** ***** *** ******* **** poor ***** *** ***** **** ** protect *** ****, ** ****. 

** *** ********, *** ********* **** in * **-* ********. **** *** jurors **** *** ******** ******* *** negligent.************ *********** *** ****** *** ***** that **** *** * **** **** believing **** **** ************ ******* ** the ******* *** ***** **** **** the ****** **** *********, ****** *** attack ******** ** * ******'* **** of *****.

IPVM ********

**** **** ** ********** **** ***** US ********* ** **** **** *** not ****** ****** ************. *** *** factor ***** ** *** ********* **** more ************ ***** **** ********* ** stopped *** *****.

** **** *** ******* ***** ** * ****** **********: ** * **** *******, * Canadian ******** ****** ********** ***** *** use ***** *******, *** ***** **** the ********* ********* ** ***** ******* may *** ** ** **** ** that ** * ****** '****-***-****' ****** ** ***** ********** ***** to ******* ** ********* ********. ******, **** article ** *** ****** ** *** 'rape ***** * ***********'***** ******.

***** **** ***** ***** ********* *** * ******* facility **** *** ***** ********** ************ ******* having *** ************ ** ***. * customer **** ***** *** ******* **** was *********** *** *** ******* *** difference ************** ******* **** **** ************ ** without -- * ******* ***. ******* to *** *** ***** **** *****, the ***** *** *** **** *** surveillance ** ** * ***** ****** noting, "* ****** ***** *** **** prevented *** ***** ******* *** ***** occurred **** ***** ****** ***** **** cameras."

Comments (3)

Thanks for the articles on legal cases. Please post more as you find them, especially where most media coverage drops off.

Nice job on researching the information for this article. It's very useful to keep in mind the potential liability for not having sufficient security but as your article aptly points out, security cameras in and of themselves cannot actually prevent a crime from happening. They can however, be useful to assist law enforcement in solving crimes and for loss prevention and asset recovery, so it pays to keep a modern, well-maintained security camera system.

Of course visible CCTV cameras are likely to act as a detterrent. Therefore a crime maybe prevented before it is committed if the criminal fears detection after he has committed an offence. if premises have poor systems, this information can easily leak out and spur criminals to chance their luck I always think it's worth having a public monitor demonstrating the quality of the CCTV to ensure no one thinks it's a dummy system or significantly poor quality.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports