Car vandalized in apartment parking lot. Cameras didn't pick up anything, again.

[PayrollHRGuy]

Let's clarify something here. Cameras don't stop crime they only record it.

 

[quincy]

Cameras can deter crime, however. And cameras can help police capture bad guys by identifying them.

 

[xylene]

If teh cameras show the whole lot except some dead zones... um perp on camera seems really likely. I'd suggest the 'tapes' were at best cursorily reviewed. They'd be carrying jacks, milk crates and wheels. Wheels. You cna't put that in your pocket.

The lot exits weren't covered?

Weak sauce. Very weak.

 

[justalayman]

Cameras can deter crime, however. And cameras can help police capture bad guys by identifying them.

They haven’t so far in the case at hand?

 

[HighwayMan]

Cameras can deter crime, however. And cameras can help police capture bad guys by identifying them.

Not so sure any of that applies in Hartford...

 

[quincy]

Not so sure any of that applies in Hartford...

The Hartford police do seem to have their hands pretty full with crimes more serious than car vandalism. It is probably true that the police in the city don't have a lot of time to devote to surveillance video viewing. It is nice to think they might, though.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Have you ever designed and installed a video surveillance system?

No, but I have seen some of those systems in operation. And I have seen specifically parkings lots in which every parking spot was within the view of the security cameras. Unmanned cameras. So for at least some lots it can be done.

To obtain useable footage of a modest sized lot where it is totally covered is not as easy as it sounds. Unless you use a manned system with ptz (cameras that can pan back and forth, tilt up and down, and zoom in), it takes a lot more than many think. It’s easy to have a camera cover a football field but to have that camera provide useable detail of what is viewed is very expensive. It isn’t found in surveillance system type cameras. If the recording is to provide enough detail, such as a license plate number or a recognizable image of a persons face, you would have a lot of cameras to cover that football field.

I will agree that the the details of the lot in question and what it would take to fully cover it are important in determining what would be reasonable for the landlord to do. But as we lack those details, it is impossible to say what this landlord could have done at reasonable cost. You seem to be trying to make the case that there is no way the landlord could be liable here even though we lack those facts. Are you not willing to concede the the details matter and that depending on those details it is possible that the landlord has liability? I am not saying that the landlord does have liability; I lack the facts to determine that. All I am saying is that depending on those facts, there might be liability. Do you not agree with that?

And as I said before, if the op is aware 5 or 6 spots aren’t covered, it would be reasonable and prudent to avoid those 5 or 6 spaces if at all possible. I would suggest gross negligence on the part of the op won’t serve him well if this went to court.

You seem to be making assumptions here, too. We have no facts to say whether the OP's wife knew those particular spots were not covered. We also have no facts to know if the OP's wife had a choice as to where to park. Parking spaces might be assigned. It might have been that all the spots that were covered by the camera were already taken. There are a variety of situations here that might have required the wife to park where she did. So it is not at all clear that the landlord could make a successful contributory negligence/assumption of the risk argument. And remember, it is a jury that decides the liability, and if the jurors in that city tend to be more sympathetic to tenants, they may be willing to overlook this issue of where the wife parked, especially if they are of the view that the landlord should have had the whole lot covered.

Again, I'm not saying the landlord is liable. Only that depending on the facts the landlord might be liable.

 

[Whoops2u]

Doe v. ST. FRANCIS HOSP. AND MEDICAL CENTER, 72 A. 3d 929 - Conn: Supreme Court 2013

There is a long discussion on the third party act liability that is the issue in this thread. I'd quote the relevant portion, but it's too long. Interested readers might search for:
Section 302 B, entitled "Risk of Intentional or Criminal Conduct

for the discussion.

 

[quincy]

A link to the case, which speaks to negligent conduct and duty of care:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-supreme-court/1638054.html

 

[Just Blue]

The Hartford police do seem to have their hands pretty full with crimes more serious than car vandalism. It is probably true that the police in the city don't have a lot of time to devote to surveillance video viewing. It is nice to think they might, though.

For the life of me I can't imagine wanting to live there....I hate even driving through that city. Blech.

 

[quincy]

For the life of me I can't imagine wanting to live there....I hate even driving through that city. Blech.

I have some favorite big cities. Hartford is not one of them.