Liability issues with security cameras?

[non-ditzyblonde]

What is the name of your state? CA

I recently installed dummy security cameras at the front and back entrances to a rental property. Yesterday a neighbor who owns a business nearby told me that I could be incurring liabilty for providing "a false sense of security" to tenants. He said he'd read about a case where an owner was sued by a tenant who was robbed at a building with fake cameras and lost.

I can see where advertising the property as a "security building with 24 hour video surveillance" would be considered fraudulent. But what if I'm just adding these cameras and not saying either way if they're real or fake? Am I risking a lawsuit? Does it matter if I tell the tenants they're real if they're not?

Thanks for any feedback.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? CA

Your name belies your practice

 

[non-ditzyblonde]

And yours denotes what I'd rather be enjoying right now instead of heading over to take care of a rental property

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state? CA

I recently installed dummy security cameras at the front and back entrances to a rental property. Yesterday a neighbor who owns a business nearby told me that I could be incurring liabilty for providing "a false sense of security" to tenants. He said he'd read about a case where an owner was sued by a tenant who was robbed at a building with fake cameras and lost.

I can see where advertising the property as a "security building with 24 hour video surveillance" would be considered fraudulent. But what if I'm just adding these cameras and not saying either way if they're real or fake? Am I risking a lawsuit? Does it matter if I tell the tenants they're real if they're not?

Thanks for any feedback.

Yes it matters. Yes you can be opening yourself up to liability. Yes you can be sued if people think the security cameras are real and a crime happens and they ask for tapes or subpoena them and you dont have them.

 

[non-ditzyblonde]

Hi Ohiogal,


Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you mean. What if you had a real camera but didn't reset the vcr every day? It just seems that well before it got to the subpoena stage you'd have the police asking if anything was caught on tape, at which point you could say that unfortunately it wasn't recording. In this case, could you be held liable for not having the tape? How about if you get a recording and capture the crime, but the video is too dark or whatever to identify the perpetrator?

I appreciate the help.

 

[averad]

Why dont you notify each tenent in writing that the cameras are fake.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Yes it matters. Yes you can be opening yourself up to liability. Yes you can be sued if people think the security cameras are real and a crime happens and they ask for tapes or subpoena them and you dont have them.

Anyone can be sued. What would the basis be? What state has a "false sense of security" tort?

 

[non-ditzyblonde]

Thanks for the additional comments.

averad,

The problem is that word would get around and soon it would be known to all- including the folks I'm having issues with- that they were fake.

You Are Guilty,

I've been looking everywhere for more information. My neighbor recalls reading something in an Apartment Owners Association magazine a few years ago but I can't find anything that specifically addresses this issue. On four bulletin boards including this one, however, there have been comments stating that there could be liability issues.

 

[tranquility]

I agree with You Are Guilty. CA is a negligence state regarding property owners. There are many cases where the landlord has been found liable when he advertises a "security building" or otherwise entices people based on increased security, I don't see much success behind security improvements require complete security as a negligence argument.

Here, the only problem I see are if the cameras are pointed out during some enticement to tennants. Even then, what are the damages? Video cameras which record are only going to be used to catch a criminal and not stop a crime. Generally a landlord is not liable for the criminal acts of a third party. This can change based on foreseeability. If there is a known problem (cars in the parking lot keep getting broken into) and the landlord does nothing, he may have some liability if he does not take reasonable steps.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for the additional comments.

averad,

The problem is that word would get around and soon it would be known to all- including the folks I'm having issues with- that they were fake.

You Are Guilty,

I've been looking everywhere for more information. My neighbor recalls reading something in an Apartment Owners Association magazine a few years ago but I can't find anything that specifically addresses this issue. On four bulletin boards including this one, however, there have been comments stating that there could be liability issues.

Maybe now is the time to put a little bit of money in to this and ask a lawyer IN PERSON about this situation.

 

[non-ditzyblonde]

I sincerely appreciate the input.


tranquility,

There will not be any enticement of potential tenants with false advertising of a security building. My thinking is similar to yours, but I'm just covering bases due to conflicting information.

Zigner,

My attorney does not know of any case law for this particular circumstance. In addition, the director of our local housing association can't see any liability issues. Many landlords I know use fake cameras. I'm just trying to gather other opinions.