grandprix104

I have what I consider to be silly question, however, it is one that my client is quite hung up on. What liability concerns could a property owner incur with a non-monitored or passive CCTV system, vs. not having CCTV at all? I was hoping I could get some direction from those on this forum as my own research has resulted in very limited documentation supporting my case. Does anyone know of any case law or documentation that would support the position that adding CCTV will only limit exposure to liability? My client thinks if nobody is actively watching the feeds, it becomes a liability to have CCTV, though I have found nothing that would support their conclusion. I also cannot find any cases where liability was incurred due to lack of CCTV. If anyone knows of any, I would love to read them! Thank you for your assistance.

FYI The property in question is a large shopping center. The property management is concerned that they may incur ANY kind of liability by merely recording events on the property vs. not having any CCTV at all. They believe the presence of cameras may instill in visitors and tenants an expectation of protection/security that is not actually there. I've worked in security for years and this makes me want to laugh, but they take it very seriously. After further research, I have found some articles claiming that the type of camera system could be deemed inadequate in court if there was a foreseeable likelihood that violent crime may occur on the premises, therefore requiring active monitoring of the CCTV system. On the other hand, if the purpose and foreseeable threats the system is designed for is simple property damage and slip/fall type incidents they suggest a passive recording system is perfectly adequate. Unfortunately, I have yet to find any scholarly articles or case law on the matter.