Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Re: HOA liabilities

Perhaps. Was there a history of break ins in the structure, why did they turn the cameras off, would the cameras being on really prevented the crime from occurring [would it give a picture from which a suspect could be identified, is the deterant effect is the existence of the camera and not whether it is taking pictures as the criminal assumes it is.

Re: HOA liabilities

Probably not. How did the action of the HOA cause things to be stolen from your parking space or car or from whereever it was stolen? Having surveilance cameras does not make the owner or manager of the parking structure the insurer of your property.

Re: HOA liabilities

Plaintiffs occasionally win suits against landlords, etc. for failure to protect against on-premises crime. In a recent California Supreme Court decision on somewhat different facts, the Court restated its view that in premises liability cases involving criminal acts by third parties, duty on the part of a landowner is primarily determined by balancing the foreseeability of harm against the burden of the duty to be imposed. Under this "sliding-scale balancing formula," the greater the burden translates into a greater forseeability of harm in order to impose a duty. Other factors are also considered, but these two are crucial. Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205.

In your situation, having working vs. non-working but visibly present security cameras would probably not be greater deterrence, but merely a better chance of apprehending the culprit. This is not a helpful set of facts. I think the chance of winning is not sufficiently high to warrant prosecuting a lawsuit against the HOA.