In my last post, I shared several concerns about the recent murder of Karen Pearce near a Decatur parking garage. I raised the question about whether the crime could have been avoided or solved sooner had there been surveillance cameras. As noted in that post, the City Manager and I exchanged emails regarding this issue. In that discussion, Ms. Merris mentioned that the city was considering requiring property owners to have minimum lighting and security standards for their properties. I am not sure what that would involve. It sounds like a good start, but the city also needs to take responsibility for having its own security cameras to intercept and track criminals after they leave a private property, not only to aid in apprehension but to prevent other crimes from occurring. MARTA has security cameras, and these were apparently instrumental in later placing Presley near Decatur around the time of the murders.
As mentioned in my prior post, the suspect in the case was picked up at a MARTA station after he tried to get in without a ticket. But what if he had not tried to jump the turnstile? It is possible that someone else could have been killed, because the authorities were not able to identify his likeness as he walked through the Decatur Square after allegedly murdering Ms. Pearce. There were no cameras to help solve this horrific crime.
And what about the property owner? What is the owner's obligation to ensure that crime does not occur on the premises? Under Georgia law, a property owner has a duty to protect those lawfully on its premises from unreasonable risks of harm. Generally though, the property owner or operator in Georgia is not liable for the criminal acts of others on his property. However, there are exceptions. The true legal test is the superior knowledge of the landowner vis-à-vis the injured victim. If the owner or operator of the property has greater knowledge of the danger of criminal acts than the potential victim on the premises, the owner/operator can be held liable.