A broken security camera does not automatically make a Missouri property owner liable after an assault. But it may matter if the owner knew about the problem and failed to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable risk.
What duty do property owners have?
Missouri law does not make property owners responsible for every criminal act on their property. In some cases, though, they may have a duty to take reasonable security measures if a crime was foreseeable.
Prior assaults, security complaints or other warning signs may help show that the risk was known or should have been known. The facts of each case matter.
How do broken cameras affect a claim?
Non-working cameras may support a negligent security claim. They can suggest weak security and may also make it harder to identify the attacker or show what happened.
If a business advertised security features, that may also be relevant. But advertising cameras does not, by itself, prove liability.
What must a victim prove?
A victim usually needs to show four things: a duty, a breach, causation and damages. In simple terms, the victim must show that the owner had a duty to act, failed to act reasonably and that failure was connected to the injury. Useful evidence may include:
- Prior police reports
- Security complaints
- Maintenance records
- Witness statements
- Nearby video footage
Broken cameras alone are not enough. The stronger the proof that the owner knew about the risk and did not respond reasonably, the stronger the claim may be.
If you were assaulted on someone else’s property, get medical care right away and save any photos, reports and witness information.
Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed