Liability for security cameras?

[draco]

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

Our condo association has trash and recycling dumpsters outside the building. We have a problem with people coming onto the property to dump trash, as well as people (both residents and non-residents) putting trash in the recycle dumpster. It's costing the association quite a bit, as the recycling company charges us if the load is 'contaminated'.

People have suggested security cameras. But the Association's board and management company said that we could face liability if something happens and the camera wasn't working or didn't record what happened. Is that truly the case or are they misunderstanding the law?

 

[adjusterjack]

the Association's board and management company said

They said? I doubt that they know squat about liability. They are just making excuses for not caring enough to do it.

If you are not a board member and want to address it properly, get yourself and other like minded owners on to the board and make the appropriate changes.

There are billions of security cameras extant in the US.

 

[LdiJ]

They said? I doubt that they know squat about liability. They are just making excuses for not caring enough to do it.

If you are not a board member and want to address it properly, get yourself and other like minded owners on to the board and make the appropriate changes.

There are billions of security cameras extant in the US.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. It is just an excuse. Liability doesn't suddenly happen just because there is a security camera. The purpose of the security camera is what could, in some cases, create a liabiilty.

For example. If the association was raising the dues in order to put in a security camera for the express purpose of protecting the residents, then liability could be created if they neglected to maintain the camera. However, if the camera was properly maintained and it still didn't catch something then still no liability.

However, if the stated purpose was to catch illegal dumping, then they could even have fake cameras with warning signs and it would never create a liability.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

Our condo association has trash and recycling dumpsters outside the building. We have a problem with people coming onto the property to dump trash, as well as people (both residents and non-residents) putting trash in the recycle dumpster. It's costing the association quite a bit, as the recycling company charges us if the load is 'contaminated'.

People have suggested security cameras. But the Association's board and management company said that we could face liability if something happens and the camera wasn't working or didn't record what happened. Is that truly the case or are they misunderstanding the law?

I don’t see how security cameras focused on your property could give rise to any liability concern for your association. What sort of liability concern has the management expressed that could arise from a security camera capturing illegal dumping? Cameras that focus on the dumpsters would not be privacy related.

Management could post a sign saying that the area is under security camera surveillance and unauthorized dumping is prohibited, to warn would be dumpers of the legal risk of doing so.

 

[draco]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. It is just an excuse. Liability doesn't suddenly happen just because there is a security camera. The purpose of the security camera is what could, in some cases, create a liabiilty.

For example. If the association was raising the dues in order to put in a security camera for the express purpose of protecting the residents, then liability could be created if they neglected to maintain the camera. However, if the camera was properly maintained and it still didn't catch something then still no liability.

However, if the stated purpose was to catch illegal dumping, then they could even have fake cameras with warning signs and it would never create a liability.

The stated purpose is to catch illegal dumping. They ruled out both fake cameras and real cameras because they're concerned about the liability if something happens to a resident. I don't understand their logic either. Security cameras wouldn't be so prevalent if that was the case. Next meeting I'll ask if they actually talked to an attorney.

 

[quincy]

The stated purpose is to catch illegal dumping. They ruled out both fake cameras and real cameras because they're concerned about the liability if something happens to a resident. I don't understand their logic either. Security cameras wouldn't be so prevalent if that was the case. Next meeting I'll ask if they actually talked to an attorney.

Management definitely should speak with an attorney in your area because they do not seem to be getting accurate information from whomever it is they have spoken to about liability.

 

[Mark_A]

If the HOA board and management company made clear to all homeowners through proper documentation of the approval and implementation of the cameras, that the cameras were not being installed for the security of residents, but only there to discourage illegal or improper disposal of trash, that should suffice in removing concerns about liability if the camera stops working. Of course, there are some people and some lawyers who file lawsuits even if there are no legitimate grounds for doing so.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to Minnesota’s statute §609.746, Interference with privacy:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.746

To avoid any privacy complaints, the surveillance cameras should not record audio (just visual) and signs should be posted. It is not illegal for a property owner to install security cameras in non-private areas of their property.

If someone were to sue (and I can’t think of any good reason why they would), a lawsuit over privacy should be quickly dismissed as having no merit.