They rarely (if ever) require an association to deter crime or provide “security.” Even CC&Rs for access-controlled communities often do not expressly authorize the association to control access, and this is usually only addressed in rules.
If the CC&Rs don’t empower the association to provide security to residents, boards and homeowners should understand the limits of the association’s authority. Surveillance cameras, entry systems, and license plate readers may be useful in allowing access to those who have the right to enter the community. They may be useful in deterring property crimes against common area, like theft or vandalism. They may help enforce rules. A patrol service can assist
in rule enforcement also.
However, none of them are primarily designed or well equipped to protect residents against criminal activity. Crime prevention is the job of the local police, and an association’s efforts should not be construed as a substitute for the police.
In fact, if an association assumes a duty to prevent crime and then fails to do so, the association would be exposed to legal
liability. Associations (like anyone who controls real
property) have a duty to keep the common area reasonably safe and free from hazards, like trip hazards. This is a duty of ordinary care, that associations meet routinely with inspections and repairs. But associations don’t generally have a duty to prevent crime. So, while an association might be liable for a trip and fall, it would not be liable for injury or damage caused by criminal activity. However, if an association voluntarily assumes responsibility to prevent crime, it also assumes a responsibility
to use ordinary care in doing so and might now be liable for injury or damage resulting from a crime.
As a general rule, property owners are not responsible for criminal activity by others. In unusual circumstances, such as where there is a history of violent crime and a way to prevent future crime, property owners may have some liability exposure. If a community has a history of criminal activity, or if there are other unique circumstances that are specifi c to that community, the board and management should confer with legal counsel.
In any case, boards should consider whether the association is unknowingly assuming a responsibility to deter crime as they implement patrols and surveillance procedures. In general, associations should avoid using the word “security” in describing their efforts so they are not seen as assuming a duty to provide security or prevent crime. Similarly, patrol and gate personnel may be called “patrol offi cers” or “gate attendants,” but not “security guards.” Owners should also be regularly reminded that they are responsible for their own safety and security and that they need to call the police immediately if they become aware of any criminal or suspect activity.
While patrols, surveillance, and access control technology can assist an association in performing its regular duties, boards, managers, owners, and residents should keep in mind the limits of an association’s authority and resources to provide “security.”
www.caioc.org
13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
