If an intruder gets hurt in our gated HOA

Some directors want to add more security personnel in our secure access (gated, fob-only entries to lobbies, etc) urban high rise HOA. ONE argument to justify the expense is that IF a trespasser gets injured on our property, s/he can sue us and win.

One director with a background in law enforcement says I should look at case law, but where to begin? Thanks!

Having a "back ground in law enforcement" doesn't mean much in giving legal advice or understanding case law. If he was a former judge I might listen, but sitting in a squad car doesn't add up to much.

I assume that you have insurance, make sure it's enough.

I'll ask this, what if you add security personnel, and a trespasser is still able to enter and gets hurt? How much added security personnel does it take to fully indemnify your building?

http://johnphillipslaw.com/premises-liability-faq/

Good digging by James above leads to the term "premises liability" in USA

Should be some good comments from Richard & others with California management skillsets.

California's Civil Code section 847 specifically addresses premises liability issue where serious criminal purposes entry occurs http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=840-848

An application /discussion is at :
Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19 C4th 714
( http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C4/19C4t714.htm

I read the sources and found all useful for various reason. Interesting, too.

I'd noted that the director who made this argument had some years ago been a detective in L.A. His argument was that trespassers and worse are suing & collecting on injuries they suffer while trespassing. CA Civ. Code 847 was enacted in the mid '80s to help prevent such lawsuits. I'm guessing that was abut the time this man changed occupations.

I also am going to use Douglas' question about whether our insurance will be reduced due to an additional officer.

Right, I do grasp the distinction between trespassers & felons as defined in 847, Bob.

We have a very active Building Committee that inspects a lot of our square-block premises regularly. In addition, our full-time building engineer inspects certain things with regularity. We directors receive his check lists & dates of inspections, etc. every month. He walks the premises monthly with our PM. Our Asst. PM walk the premises once a month with the custodial firm, but notes anything that needs to be repaired. In other words, there is no problem of negligence here.

For security, we have a 24/7 kiosk officer at our gated vehicle entry/exit. We have two towers with a lobby & reception desk in each. One is staffed most of the day each weekday, 8-5. The other is staffed episodically evenings/nights, holidays and weekends. We have 26 cameras that can be monitored 24/7 in the kiosk and at the managers' desks and lobby desks. In the past year, we've had seven incidents of trespassers, all homeless people. All entered by following residents in through our lobby doors. All were spotted or reported within minutes of entry & escorted out of the lobbies. In one case, an officer was at the lobby desk but talking with other residents and didn't notice the stranger enter.

So, the main reason some want an additional officer is to beef up presence in the lobbies. This will cost $24,000/ann+. While less vocal about this, these directors hope the officers will act as doormen & assist residents through the doors with parcels, shopping carts, luggage, etc. But even with this extra officer, there will be plenty of times when the lobby desks are vacant: during required short breaks and meal breaks; visiting the restroom, covering the kiosk when that office takes breaks, visits the restroom, etc. Notably, the lobby officers go into parcel rooms to get parcels of residents. With so much online buying nowadays, numerous parcels are delivered daily. During the few minutes the officer is in the parcel room, he can't see his monitor, nor the entry doors from the street.

Imo, there is no cost-effective way to staff both desks 24-7. And that would be the only way to assure that 7 trespassers don't enter the buildings. But even then, 1 or 2 would in a year.

Imo, too, we need a good educational seminar for our residents to persuade them to take responsibility for their own security, and offer tips about how.