SSI serves security installing contractors providing systems and services; surveillance, access control, biometrics, fire alarm and home control/automation. Coverage in commercial and residential product applications, designs, techniques, operations.
Issue link: https://securitysales.epubxp.com/i/85538
||| LEGAL BRIEFING ||| FALSE ALARMS CAN MEAN REAL LIABILITIES by Ken Kirschenbaum Ken Kirschenbaum has been a recognized counsel to the alarm industry for 35 years and is principal of Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C. (www.kirschenbaumesq.com). His team of attorneys, which includes daughter Jennifer, specialize in transactional, defense litigation, regulatory compliance and collection matters. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of SSI, and not intended as legal advice. ken@kirschenbaumesq.com I s there or should there be liability for dispatching on a false alarm? Alarm response centers face this issue every day, and by extension alarm dealers who have to deal with the associated irate subscribers. While you may think the worst that can happen is a false alarm fi ne and possibly later confl ict with the customer who's going to pay for it, there are other damages and claims that can arise. Refusal of police and fi re departments to respond to your subscriber's premises comes to mind, but that is related to the false alarm fi ne issue. Alarm companies get involved with liability for false alarms primarily in two ways. T e fi rst is destruction to the subscriber's premises for what turns out to be no reason at all. T e second is for injury suff ered by those responding to what turns out to be a false alarm, creating an unnecessary and unjustifi ed risk. How do these potential claims typically arise? Damage to your subscriber's premises is easy to imagine. A faulty CO detector signals the central station that in turn notifi es the fi re department. T e subscriber isn't home and the fi re department has to break into the premises only to fi nd no trace of carbon monoxide. Responder injury is another potential for liability. Police or fi re personnel responding to a legitimate emergency alarm who are injured on the way to the premises or while at the premises would not think of suing the central station that dispatched the alarm. But when the alarm is considered false the injured responder believes the risk of response should not have been necessary; the risk was necessitated because of the negligence of the alarm company. T ere have been cases where police or fi refi ghters have been injured in car Alarm companies face liability for false alarms in two ways: destruction to the subscriber's premises for what turns out to be no reason at all, and injury suffered by those responding to a false alarm, creating an unnecessary and unjustifi ed risk. thereby causing the harm. False alarms in some jurisdictions accidents on the way to the alarmed premises. T ere have been cases where emergency responders have been injured once arriving at the subscriber's premises. I recall one case where a police offi cer's leg went through a wooden staircase when he was checking the back door for illegal entry, responding to what turned out to be a false burglar alarm. T e general common law rule is called the Fireman's Rule, and has been extended to police and other emergency responders. T ey are not permitted to sue for damages arising from their response to emergency situations because that is precisely what they are trained and paid to do. However, some jurisdictions have enacted laws to permit emergency responders to sue for injury under certain circumstances. Suing under these laws, rather than under the common law (which is the law that we in this country pretty much took from England) requires diff erent criteria to establish liability. Under these statutes the injured responder needs to prove that a defendant violated a specifi c statute, regulation or rule, and that the violation caused the injury. T e injured responder will have to identify the statute or ordinance, describe how the responder was injured and detail the facts showing how the defendant was negligent, 88 / SECURITYSALES.COM / OCTOBER 2012 may violate some law or ordinance. For example, there may be verifi cation required and the central station may not have followed protocol. T e alarm system may not be installed in accordance with code requirements constituting a violation. T ere are some other types of claims that arise from false alarms as well. Years ago, I defended a lawsuit by a subscriber who claimed to suff er a heart attack caused by a false alarm in the middle of the night. I won that one. Presently I am defending an alarm company whose subscriber was seriously injured after she decided to jump out of a second-story window in response to a false alarm. T at case is still pending after almost fi ve years of litigation. I'll keep you posted. SECURITY SALES & INTEGRATION (ISSN 1539-0071) (USPS 511-590) is published monthly by Bobit Business Media, 3520 Challenger Street, Torrance, California 90503-1640. Periodicals postage paid at Torrance, California 90503-9998 and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Security Sales, P.O. Box 1068 Skokie, IL 60076-8068. Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for address changes to take effect. Subscription Prices - United States $96 per year; Canada $96 per year; Foreign $140 per year. Single copy price - $8; Fact Book - $35. Please allow 4 to 6 weeks to receive your first issue. Please address Editorial and Advertising correspondence to the Executive Offices at 3520 Challenger Street, Torrance, California 90503-1640. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in whole or in part without consent of Bobit Business Media. All statements made, although based on information believed to be reliable and accurate, cannot be guaranteed and no fault or liability can be accepted for error or omission.