Question: I have been told that a recent court case in Toronto has found liability
on the part of a company that installed dummy cameras on the outside of
their building. It seems that these cameras were aimed at a parking lot
area where a woman was raped. As the story goes, she sued the building
owner (and I think the installing company) on the basis that these people
had a " duty of care" to ensure the safety of anyone on the premises.
It seems the dummy cameras gave people a false sense of security.
As I said, this is only what I have been told. Does anyone know the facts
and the details of this case...?
Answer:There are several cases in the U.S. where companies have been sued for using
simulated cameras. Additionally, several have been sued for having real
cameras but not having them monitored even though they had signs stating the
premises was under 24 hour video monitoring.
The general rule is that a simulated camera can lead to a false sense of
security. The key indicator is if that person felt the presence of the cameras
provided additional security.
Likewise, if a company says the cameras are monitored, they should be.
