Legal cases are too complex to analyze without knowing all the facts.
Either this was a poorly-defended case, or else I'd be inclined to believe that there was more involved in the "expectation of safety" case than merely the presence of a camera that was not monitored. There would have also had to be shown some form of negligence with respect to this issue.
Property owners do not owe a duty to anyone to assure their "safety". What they owe is a duty to:
1. Take reasonable steps to discover criminal activity (and other unsafe conditions) occurring on their property, and...
2. Either take reasonable steps to mitigate such unsafe activity/conditions OR to plainly warn persons of the risks.
My thought is that the presence of a visible camera (drone or otherwise) would not be a sufficient showing to establish a "reasonable expectation of safety" (assuming the case is properly defended). There must also have been some showing of a foreseeable risk of criminal activity based on the mall's history, etc., etc., and some degree of negligence in how this was dealt with.
Of course, we also have to remember that juries are quite capable of rendering verdicts that are not correct from the standpoint of the facts or legal principles. A case comes to mind...it's on the tip of my tongue...can't quite think what it was....Simpson somebody-or-other?
Either this was a poorly-defended case, or else I'd be inclined to believe that there was more involved in the "expectation of safety" case than merely the presence of a camera that was not monitored. There would have also had to be shown some form of negligence with respect to this issue.
Property owners do not owe a duty to anyone to assure their "safety". What they owe is a duty to:
1. Take reasonable steps to discover criminal activity (and other unsafe conditions) occurring on their property, and...
2. Either take reasonable steps to mitigate such unsafe activity/conditions OR to plainly warn persons of the risks.
My thought is that the presence of a visible camera (drone or otherwise) would not be a sufficient showing to establish a "reasonable expectation of safety" (assuming the case is properly defended). There must also have been some showing of a foreseeable risk of criminal activity based on the mall's history, etc., etc., and some degree of negligence in how this was dealt with.
Of course, we also have to remember that juries are quite capable of rendering verdicts that are not correct from the standpoint of the facts or legal principles. A case comes to mind...it's on the tip of my tongue...can't quite think what it was....Simpson somebody-or-other?
Comment