Do Your Cameras Have Counter Measures?

[edredtop]

I'm late to the party on this one year old story but apparently there are camera systems that can prevent murders like the military's Patriot Missile System and we are required to have them installed.
Obviously I'm being sacastic but wtf? Are there required cameras angles too?
Video:

 

[Blanco]

Thats just stupid and the jury must not have been that bright either.

 

[JLanman]

What?? Unbelievable..

 

[GoBuckeyes]

So installing one camera magically prevents any and all crime?! If that camera was installed prior to his shooting are they saying he would still be alive? This infuriates me.......I probably have close to a 100 cameras and I have weekly crime issues....I want a refund. People are f'n stupid!! This also sets a terrible precedent!

 

[OurTown]

WTF? How in the hell is the car wash owner responsible for the murder? Seven and a half million dollars? These news stories are always trying to tug on your heart strings. Also, I have yet to find any security cameras. They do not secure anything. They are surveillance cameras.

 

[slash007]

What a shit story. Cameras would not have prevented a single thing. I'm sure he will appeal and hopefully get a more fair minded jury. This case should have been dismissed from day 1.

 

[Dan kamsickas]

If you watch it again, the complaint wasn't that the cameras would have prevented the murder rather that the lack of cameras created an unsafe environment for the customer. I sent it to a friend that's a trial lawyer and she said while there is a reasonable expectation that all businesses have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for their customers this is a bit much. She also added: "That's why trial by jury isn't always a good route. Do you really want to be judged by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty?"

 

[slash007]

I'm not sure how cameras create a safe environment either. I wish they deterred theft and crime in general. Only thing I can see in their favor is that a shooting occurred there a few months previous, so they should have done something at that point.

 

[eckert16]

the story suggests that after the first shooting at this carwash when there were no cameras, that the carwash should have installed cameras to enhance security.

 

[Earl Weiss]

the story suggests that after the first shooting at this carwash when there were no cameras, that the carwash should have installed cameras to enhance security.

You also have cases where cameras were not working or did not catch something and that was a basis for a similar theory. FWIW peopl can claim all sorts of stuff - doesn't men thy will win. That is one reason to have insurance - to pay for the legal defense.

 

[Greg Pack]

Many years ago I talked to an a operator that lost a lawsuit because his camera systems wasn't working. A woman was sexually assaulted there. Similar circumstances but the judgement was much smaller. 7.5 million is scary.

I personally own my two car wash properties, not through an LLC. Many hold through an LLC. However, I was told long ago by an attorney as long as I "run" the car washes I'm personally libel for anything that happens there anyway and there is no substitute for insurance. Maybe I need to look at increasing my umbrella.

Done long ago with the ghetto washes too.

 

[Keno]

...

I personally own my two car wash properties, not through an LLC. Many hold through an LLC. However, I was told long ago by an attorney as long as I "run" the car washes I'm personally libel for anything that happens there anyway...

I'm not an attorney, but pretty sure this is false. They have to be able to pierce the corporate veil to hold you personally liable - if you use an LLC or any corporate structure as intended, it will provide protection. Even if you "run" the washes, you are a mere employee of the LLC. If what that attorney said was true, there would be a lot of managers of establishments being held personally liable as well. My $0.02

 

[OurTown]

I'm not an attorney, but pretty sure this is false. They have to be able to pierce the corporate veil to hold you personally liable - if you use an LLC or any corporate structure as intended, it will provide protection. Even if you "run" the washes, you are a mere employee of the LLC. If what that attorney said was true, there would be a lot of managers of establishments being held personally liable as well. My $0.02

Maybe it depends on what state you are in but we were told long ago also something similar to what Greg said. It might have some protections and benefits but not much. With that said, we hold ownership in Ohio with an LLC.

 

[Greg Pack]

I'm not an attorney, but pretty sure this is false. They have to be able to pierce the corporate veil to hold you personally liable - if you use an LLC or any corporate structure as intended, it will provide protection. Even if you "run" the washes, you are a mere employee of the LLC. If what that attorney said was true, there would be a lot of managers of establishments being held personally liable as well. My $0.02

You may have an out if you don't actively run the washes. If they're looking for a payout they're going to look at who committed nonfeasance and was utlimately responsible to keep the place safe, and that falls on management. Are they going after the hourly wage guy, or the higher net worth guy? My concern is when you see judegements awarded far in excess of my liability coverage and they see an owner with a higher net worth.

A litigious attorney could possibly make a similar claim for poorly maintained lighting.

Again, Earl is out resident esquire so I would like to hear what he has to say.