I am shocked at the news of Canny Ong being abducted at approximately 10:45pm from the lower basement 1 of Bangsar Shopping Complex, and suspected of being subsequently gruesomely murdered ( The Star , June 18, 2003).

Seven months ago, a 19-year-old woman alleged she was raped by her colleague at the outer corridor in Subang Parade at 11pm. In a separate incident, a woman was raped in a secluded spot in the basement car park of Damansara Uptown.

Besides these serious crimes are the spate of car thefts, mugging and robbery in car parks that go unreported. These incidences raise the important issue of the extent of duty of care exercisable on the part of shopping complexes and their property management to care for public safety especially after the close of official business hours at 10pm.

Although retail shops may close by 10pm, food and beverage outlets at the outer corridors of these major shopping complexes are still allowed by property management to continue their businesses. This means that their patrons will have to go back to their cars at the car parks much later.

What then is the property management's extent of responsibility towards public safety in this respect?

The general rule is that no one has a duty to prevent crimes committed by another. Such acts are presumed "novus actus interveniens", meaning an intervening event with no causal link to responsibility of any person. Therefore a visitor is taken to have voluntarily assumed his/her own risks by going unescorted to the car parks and hence cannot blame anyone.

There is however an important exception to this general rule, when a higher duty of care is expected of property management if there were a "special relationship" between the shopping complex and the victim, or a high degree of foreseeability that damage might occur.

I contend that any patron whose business benefits the shopping complex will come under this "special relationship". The fact that incidences of rapes have occurred in the recent past in similar circumstances means that they ought to be foreseeable by property management, which has a responsibility to take reasonable steps towards public safety to avert, or at least respond, to their occurrences.

In the case of Canny Ong, as in other cases, what happened in the carparks?

How could a patron be forcibly abducted if there were one or two security guards employed by property management to patrol the different levels of deserted car parks, and especially at their exit points?

Are there sufficient surveillance cameras installed in all levels to cover a broad sweep of area or only certain angles? Are there cameras at the autopay stations to capture onscreen those who have to pay to exit?

Even if so, do security personnel within the complexes monitor these surveillance after close of complexes at 10 pm? Or do they go off-duty?

For sure, there cannot be perfect and absolute control at all times over such large swathes of area in shopping malls. But it will go a long way towards public safety in mitigation of risks if security personnel monitor the surveillance scenes and actively patrol deserted areas after 10pm and up until one hour following the close of the last food and beverage outlet.

I notice security personnel are more active in their duties during working hours when there are a lot of people around (and therefore could assist in a crime incident) when the emphasis should properly be directed at times when few or nobody is around after 10pm! In some complexes, the car park access system is via payment of RM1 coin at the exit, which means anybody with RM1 can break into and drive off with my car.

Bottom line is greater surveillance and security personnel means greater cost to property management. But this can be absorbed in part by property management, from contributions from tenants especially those operating after 10pm, or in part from carpark fees.

Round the clock safety and security of person and car in shopping complexes is prerequisite as a customer. I am not impressed by the fineprint of parking tickets or signs on walls that exempt complexes from liability in just about everything.

This is mere legal hogwash. When a shopping complex by advertisement induces me to visit it, and commercially gain from the activity, there is this special relationship by which the property management has a higher duty to do what is reasonably fair and practical to mitigate risks to my personal safety and the safety of my car.