DUTY OF CARE AND BURGLAR ALARMS

Bailey v HSS Alarms, Court of Appeal, 22 March 2000

In Bailey v HSS Alarms, Court of Appeal, 22 March 2000 the defendants were held to owe a duty of care to the claimants and that they were in breach of that duty. The claimants had entered into a contract with a third party for the installation of a burglar alarm. Monitoring of the system was conducted by the defendants under a sub-contract with the contractors. The defendants operated a monitoring system which informed them when a burglar alarm had been activated. The defendants had the names of the keyholders nominated by the claimants. A burglary occurred at the claimants’ premises. The defendants did not inform the keyholders. The police visited the site but could not gain access. They assumed the alarm had malfunctioned. It was held that the defendants owed a duty of care to the claimants and that the scope of the duty extended to loss of profit suffered by the claimants. Furthermore the fact that the defendants had limited their liability to the contractor to £100,000 was held to be irrelevant to the claimants’ claim in tort.