Category Archives: Safety

Building a Better Continuity Plan for Hurricane Season

Posted on by

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 40% of businesses do not reopen after a disaster and another 25% fail within one year. As September is not only the beginning of hurricane season, but also National Preparedness Month, the Insurance Information Institute and the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety have released a new infographic highlighting some of the crucial steps businesses should be taking to fortify against natural disasters.

“Businesses that plan for a disaster have the best chance of surviving, and that starts with identifying the potential risks,” said Loretta Worters, a vice president with the I.I.I. “Large businesses have risk managers, but small business owners have to be their own risk managers and, working with their insurance professional, determine the right type and amount of insurance to be able to recover from a disaster.”

“It is also critical for small business owners to create and/or update their business continuity plan and work with employees so they are prepared for the potential effects of a disaster,” said Gail Moraton, business resiliency manager at IBHS. “Taking time to do this now will save money and time later.”

hurricane preparedness business continuity

Defective Sidewalk Conditions: Who is at Fault?

Posted on by

sidewalk2

Liability between municipalities and landowners for injuries sustained by pedestrians due to defective sidewalk conditions has been the subject of lawsuits and statutory enactments for years. In California, municipalities generally own the sidewalks adjacent to private property owners’ land, but state law provides that the landowners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalk fronting their property in a safe and usable manner. According to Streets and Highways Code 5610:

“The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a parking or a parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience…”

California state law provides that a municipality may assess landowners for the cost the municipality incurs to maintain sidewalks if the landowner fails to perform his/her duty. Although state law provides that abutting landowners are responsible for sidewalk maintenance and may be assessed the cost of repairs, they may not be liable for injuries or damages to third persons who use the sidewalk, unless the municipality enacts an ordinance that addresses liability. Williams v. Foster (1989). Williams arose after the plaintiff, Dennis Williams, tripped on a raised portion of the sidewalk in the City of San Jose, and thereafter sued the City. In its defense, San Jose argued that under 5610, the owner of the property fronting the sidewalk in question was solely liable.

Rejecting this contention, the court held that Foster (landowner) owed no legal duty at all to the injured plaintiff.

In reaching the Williams decision, the court held that imposing upon abutting owners a duty of care in favor of third persons “would require clear and unambiguous language,” which according to the court, is not contained in 5610. Notably, the court went on to state that the City “could have enacted an ordinance which expressly made abutting owners liable to members of the public for failure to maintain the sidewalk, but did not.” Following the Williams decision, the City of San Jose amended its sidewalk ordinance to include language similar to that suggested by the Williams Court.

In 2001, after adopting a sidewalk liability ordinance that addressed the issues raised in Williams, San Jose was sued by Joanne Gonzalez, who alleged she was injured when she tripped and fell over a raised portion on a public sidewalk. Gonzalez also sued Charles Huang, who owned the property adjacent to the sidewalk on which she fell.  Huang was sued on the theory that he had a common law duty to the plaintiff to maintain the sidewalk in a non-dangerous condition, as well as a duty under the San Jose Municipal Code.

The City of San Jose argued that the adjacent property owner was partially liable because he had not maintained the sidewalk as required by the local ordinance. Huang filed a motion for summary judgment arguing in part that the sidewalk liability ordinance enacted by the City of San Jose was unconstitutional. The trial court agreed with Huang and granted his Motion for Summary Judgment. Both Gonzalez and the City of San Jose appealed.

The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal which in 2004 ruled in San Jose’s favor.

  (Gonzales v. City of San Jose (2004.) The primary issue before the court was whether the state law preempted the local measure. The court found that the ordinance was constitutional and was not preempted by state law.

In its holding, the Gonzales court noted that cities are empowered under the California Constitution to enact ordinances and regulations deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and that the City of San Jose’s ordinance was a permissible exercise of that power. Without such an ordinance, the court noted, landowners would have no incentive to maintain adjacent sidewalks in a safe manner.

The court emphasized that the ordinance did not serve to absolve the city of liability for dangerous conditions on city-owned sidewalks when the city created the dangerous condition, knew of its existence and failed to remedy it. Since the Gonzales ruling, many municipalities have considered liability shifting ordinances. Some have enacted such ordinances while others have not, oftentimes on public policy concerns.

Note that even in jurisdictions which have enacted liability shifting ordinances, one must determine the cause of the defective sidewalk condition. In many ordinances, liability does not shift to the landowner if the landowner did not cause the defective condition to exist.

Thus, in analyzing liability in a case involving an allegedly defective sidewalk condition, a major issue will be whether the municipality has a liability shifting ordinance. If such an ordinance exists, it must be read carefully to determine its scope, as each ordinance differs from municipality to municipality.

Miller and Valasek Show the Real-World Impact Hackers Can Have

Posted on by

Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek at Black Hat USA 2015Photo: Black Hat USA 2015

LAS VEGAS—At Black Hat 2015, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek gave one of the most highly anticipated and best-attended presentations, even far beyond the elite infosecurity experts gathered here this week. The already notable duo of hackers made international headlines two weeks ago when they demonstrated more than a year’s worth of work figuring out how to hack into and remotely control unaltered cars—and used Wired reporter Andy Greenberg as their test driver.

Greenberg’s article and video of the test paint a compelling portrait of just what Miller and Valasek’s hack means in practice. “As the two hackers remotely toyed with the air-conditioning, radio, and windshield wipers, I mentally congratulated myself on my courage under pressure. That’s when they cut the transmission,” Greenberg wrote. “Immediately my accelerator stopped working. As I frantically pressed the pedal and watched the RPMs climb, the Jeep lost half its speed, then slowed down to a crawl.

buy xtandi online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/xtandi.html no prescription pharmacy

This occurred just as I reached a long overpass, with no shoulder to offer an escape. The experiment had ceased to be fun.”

From a couch in Miller’s basement 10 miles away, they were able to seize control of the Jeep, and their methods could be applied to any car operating the same technology: Uconnect, an internet-connected computer feature in hundreds of thousands of cars that controls the entertainment and navigation systems, enables phone calls and, with a subscription purchase, offers a Wi-Fi hotspot. The hackers’ exploit can also be used for surveillance, using the Jeep’s GPS to track location to measure speed, and even drops pins on a map at regular intervals to trace its route. And, because of the system’s cellular connection, this can be done on any car from anywhere with access to the same cellular network (Sprint) as long as hackers know the car’s IP address.

In the wake of the Wired article, Sprint has blocked the kind of phone to car traffic and car to car traffic that facilitates remote hacking. What’s more, Fiat Chrysler announced the recall of 1.

buy elavil online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/elavil.html no prescription pharmacy

4 million cars and trucks that could be vulnerable to hacking—more than three times as many as the pair originally estimated may be at risk.

buy phenergan online www.phamatech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/phenergan.html no prescription pharmacy

Miller and Valasek approached the company with their findings as early as 2014, and said the automaker was responsive to their report. Unauthorized remote access was blocked with a network-level improvement, the company announced shortly after Greenberg’s article went to print. In addition to the recall to update software in the infotainment system, affected customers will receive a USB device to upgrade vehicles’ software with internal safety features.

And lest anyone still question the impact hackers can have on a business’s bottom line, as they were only too happy to point out, here’s a look at Chrysler’s stock from a week before to a week after the Wired story:

chrysler stock

Part of their aim was to increase consumer awareness and provoke greater scrutiny of technology they are being told is safe. “If consumers don’t realize this is an issue, they should, and they should start complaining to carmakers,” Miller told Wired. “This might be the kind of software bug most likely to kill someone.” Their research has already effected concrete change beyond the cars recalled. Partially spurred by the team’s earlier demonstrations in the arena, Senators Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced legislation on July 21 that would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to establish rules to secure cars and protect consumer privacy. The bill would also establish a rating system to inform owners about how secure their vehicles are beyond any minimum federal requirements, Bloomberg reported. “Controlled demonstrations show how frightening it would be to have a hacker take over controls of a car,” Markey said in a statement to Wired. “Drivers shouldn’t have to choose between being connected and being protected…We need clear rules of the road that protect cars from hackers and American families from data trackers.”

Miller and Valasek have done a lot more than present a frightening demonstration of just how vulnerable so many cars are, and it involves everyone here at Black Hat. In their presentation, Valasek opened with a blunt public service announcement: Please stop saying anything is “unhackable,” because you are wrong and you are just going to look silly. Proving that took more than a year of meticulous work, much of which could not be easily reproduced and applied any time soon, but they did prove it, and in doing so, they prompted the first formal safety campaign in response to a cybersecurity threat. That may be the biggest impact, he told the audience: “Hackers did something, fiscal change happened and it wasn’t in infosec—it was in the real world.”

Should Your Company Install an Office Surveillance System?

Posted on by

There are plenty of compelling reasons to install a surveillance system in your office, but there are also a number of reasons not to. Cameras are becoming more and more common in our daily lives, and choosing whether or not to embrace them in your own workplace can be a challenging decision.

online pharmacy elavil with best prices today in the USA

There are advantages and disadvantages to consider before installing cameras and phone/Internet monitoring. Here are a few of them:

Pro: Cameras prevent theft

There is no denying that a camera monitoring system is going to drastically reduce incidents of employee theft. Studies have shown time and time again that areas that are clearly monitored by camera systems have significantly less crime than places that suggest anonymity. If you have a problem with items going missing around the office, installing cameras can be a way of showing that you are aware of the problem without directly confronting a potentially innocent employee. Cameras are a highly effective deterrent that can quickly nip a theft problem in the bud.

Con: Cameras may offer a false sense of security

If you have a particularly devious employee, cameras may actually work against you. If an employee really wants to steal from the office, he or she will probably find a way to do so regardless of the cameras. You may feel like you do not need to do anything else once cameras are installed, which can cause you to let your guard down. For this reason, cameras should be used as an addition to your current loss prevention plan, rather than being used as the primary deterrent.

online pharmacy cipro with best prices today in the USA

Pro: Cameras provide evidence

If an unforeseen incident occurs on your company’s property, you may have to deal with a lawsuit. Having cameras installed ensures that you have indisputable evidence to back up your story. If you suspect an employee of misconduct, you can simply check the camera to make sure your worries are not misguided. You never want to have to depend on your cameras, but it is certainly nice to know that they are there when you do.

Con: Employees may feel stifled

Any office manager knows that keeping morale up is essential to keep productivity high. Although you may mean well, installing cameras can sometimes be viewed as an invasion of privacy. It is important to form a bond of trust with your employees, and cameras or phone/Internet monitoring can undo the work you have done to establish meaningful relationships. However, explaining your stance on the issue and approaching it head-on may help to alleviate any concerns your staff may have.

Pro: Monitoring employees provides valuable training materials

Sometimes explaining how to handle a situation just isn’t as effective as being able to show a trainee a video or recording of a similar situation. Or, if an accident occurs, having video or audio recordings allows you to see what went wrong and prevent problems next time. Often words do not carry nearly as much impact as a recording of a real-life situation, so in-office surveillance can make your employees better at their jobs and more equipped to handle tough situations.

Con: The cost

Although today’s surveillance cameras are surprisingly budget-friendly, you still have to consider the cost of hiring employees to monitor them. You may also need to have them repaired if something goes wrong. Depending on the size of your office, buying multiple cameras and monitors can get quite pricy. The cameras often pay for themselves in the long run, however, by reducing theft and increasing productivity.

Choose based on your situation

Every office is different, and what works for one may not be ideal for another. Cameras can be absolutely essential in some situations, or you may be able to operate just fine without them. You may want to start with just a camera or two to see how your employees react, and then add more if necessary. Making the right choice for your office can be challenging, but in-office surveillance can be a valuable way to protect your livelihood and improve employee conduct.