Liability of owning a CCTV system

[grandprix104 0]

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.

[the toss 0]

Depends on WHAT liabilities you are referring to. It may be that there is a regulative requirement to have CCTV as in the case of Liquour licensing and other high risk areas or there may be an insurance requirement for CCTV as in entertainment and other high patronage areas. As far as I know there is no requirement anywhere for real time response to anything captured on CCTV. HOWEVER if an insurance or legal firm smelt a dollar to be made .....well

[grandprix104 0]

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.

[the toss 0]

For someone to mount a legal case on the premis that CCTV will prevent a crime from taking place is akin to saying that no crime will happen because you have a Police Force. Of course if there is signage in the shopping centre implying or stating it is for the safety of customers then you could be in trouble. The best course of action would be to simply state that CCTV is in use throughout the premises and leave it at that.

[tomcctv 190]

Hi. This could be an easy one to answer your question .... But to do that you need to give your location or country were you are.

[mattaggie 0]

I cant really answer your question as I have no law background or knowledge. I cant imagine being held liable because no one is watching. Its not very realistic to have someone watching many cameras all day long.

 

One reason I put a system in my retail store was to avoid liability issues. Lets say someone "slips" and falls on purpose to get money. Well I have footage of that event. Person says the floor was slippery or dirty, well I have footage of it being swept, etc.

 

Ive had people say something was stolen out of their car while they were at my business. I check the camera footage and no one ever approached the car.

 

Cameras aren't the definitive answer to every issue, but they sure do help in so many scenarios. I think if your client can afford them, he should definitely get cameras.