Why Security Camera Failures Increase Liability Risks

Security cameras are just about everywhere today. The majority of businesses install security cameras to deter crime, but they also play a vital role in personal injury cases. When an accident happens, it’s nice to think that security camera footage can serve as a neutral source for finding answers to disputes regarding fault. But, it’s important to remember that any form of technology isn’t completely reliable.

Businesses and other property owners have control over the security cameras. While most companies do their best to promptly repair faulty equipment, simply seeing a camera doesn’t mean that it is operating. Although it might be frustrating to be unable to secure footage from a security camera that upholds your claims, it’s important to know that a failure can increase a person or entity’s liability risks.

Taking a closer look at why a security camera failure can contribute to greater liabilities helps you prepare to manage your personal injury case.

Weakening Defenses Against False Claims

A security camera can provide objective footage that could reveal the truth behind claims. During personal injury cases, property owners often claim that they acted responsibly and that the claimant contributed to the accident. Meanwhile, personal injury claimants often cite noticeable hazards on the property that caused them to get hurt.

Video footage helps to cut through potentially false claims by showing the exact cause of a fall or other type of accident that led to a personal injury. Depending on the situation, the footage could also show how long a known hazard existed and whether or not the area had warning signs.

If a property owner believes that they are being falsely accused of maintaining an unsafe area on their premises, then losing the camera footage also means missing out on the opportunity to combat fraudulent claims. Meanwhile, a claimant also loses the chance to demonstrate that a property owner didn’t do their due diligence to maintain the safety of others.

Setting the Stage for Destruction of Evidence Allegations

During a personal injury case, it’s important to appear as trustworthy as possible. If a security camera experiences a technical glitch at the time an accident occurs, the burden to prove evidence wasn’t intentionally destroyed could fall on the shoulders of the property owner.

In some cases, it might be possible to show that a security camera temporarily lost power or access to virtual storage. But, this can look suspicious when the other cameras in a building did not suffer from any footage issues. If the case goes to court, then it is possible that a jury or judge could suspect that the property owner was purposefully holding back evidence. Since destruction of evidence carries potential legal penalties, it’s best for property owners to avoid looking dishonest.

Keep in mind, however, that some surveillance systems record over data after a specific amount of time. Many jurisdictions regulate how long businesses must keep video surveillance footage, which can also play a role in personal injury cases. If a property owner failed to retain potential evidence during a specified amount of time, then they could be penalized for not following the law in the first place.

Eliminating the Option of Using a Reasonable Time Defense

Safety hazards often take time to correct. For instance, someone might need time to grab a broom and a dustpan to clean up broken glass. In personal injury cases, video footage can often support a person’s claim that they did their due diligence within a reasonable amount of time. But, a security camera failure can eliminate their ability to prove that they did.

Without video footage, accident investigators will look for other details to demonstrate what happened. For instance, mold growth could reveal that a plumbing leak that led to a slip-and-fall accident lasted for a lengthy period of time.

Maintaining security cameras can also reveal that someone did their part to put up clear warning signs when the issue took longer than a few seconds to correct. If a claimant states that there weren’t any warning signs present, then the property owner may have no way to prove that they were.

Preventing the Ability to Build Cases Around the Context of an Incident

Many personal injury cases involve property owners questioning what the claimant did that contributed to the accident. If a camera is working, then it could show someone acting erratically or breaking safety rules right before they got hurt. Without evidence showing this, it can be difficult to prove that someone caused themselves to sustain an injury.

Lacking quality footage can also make it harder to see what happened in the immediate moments following the injury. For someone who suffers a personal injury, this is where incident reports and medical documentation become vital to a case. Being able to prove that you didn’t go back to what you were doing after the accident can show the severity of the injury. Since you might not be able to demonstrate events such as applying first aid, a visit to a medical clinic can support your claims.

Accidents often happen so fast that even the people who are there at the time have trouble piecing together what actually happened. Even viewing the incident from a different angle can shift a witness’s perspective, and human memories are not always completely accurate. Whenever possible, it’s important to gather information from sources that are hard to dispute.

Being able to produce video evidence of someone slipping and falling on a slippery floor without any warning signs can help bolster a personal injury case. Meanwhile, lacking video evidence when multiple cameras are clearly placed around a property can make a business appear negligent about maintaining strong security practices. At worst, claiming that security cameras failed could make a company appear dishonest.

Although businesses may maintain control over their security systems, there are times when a dangerous premises attorney may request video footage. When this isn’t possible to receive, the case may begin moving in the direction of demonstrating negligence on the part of the property owner. Since making sure that all parts of a property are properly maintained for the safety of others, it simply makes sense to also have reasonable expectations that security cameras will be in working order at the time of any accidents that occur.