4 ms·

Those keys were those of an ex-employee. When you let a person go or they leave the company those credentials should have been changed.

• danielweber 11y ago
  They should have. He also should not have given out the password. A failure to change the locks does not mean you have created an attractive nuisance to former employees.
  • Retric 11y ago
    Attractive nuance is supposed to apply to children. However, failure to collect keys get's into murky situations.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      Can you be more specific about the murky situation we're talking about here? I moved offices from Oak Park back into Chicago a few months back. The landlord never collected the key. My old office was rented out (I can see from the window). Can I go look around inside it?
      • Retric 11y ago
        It's not that you have the right to go back. Rather, by failing to change the locks they might have some liability if you did go back. If a lessor or landlord in Illinois does not change or rekey the unit's lock before the day the new tenant or lessee takes possession, and a THEFT occurs at that dwelling unit that is attributable to the lessor's failure to change or rekey the lock, the landlord is liable for any damages from the theft that occurs as a result of the lessor's failure to comply with the law http://www.securitydepositlaw.com/blog/chicago-tenants-rights-changing-or-rekeying-locks http://www.securitydepositlaw.com/blog/chicago-tenants-right...
        • tptacek 11y ago
          No, that's actually not true of commercial leases in Chicago. It's true of residential leases because residential landlords have a whole bunch of very specific issues about key changes. But stipulate that it was true. What bearing does that have on this case? If I go into that office and steal $5000 worth of computer equipment, am I not liable for felony grand theft because the landlord has civil liability to the tenant?
          • Retric 11y ago
            Liability can be shared and a tenant may greatly prefer going after an ex. landlord vs. some random person. Granted, this does not apply in your case, but Chicago does have mixed use Residential/Commercial leases which is covered. Now suppose a tenant goes back to retrieve their property the day after there lease ends. Which under some situations they are allowed to do. Key works, the enter building... IANAL, but would suggest this is a situation the owner would like to avoid.
            • tptacek 11y ago
              Your concern here is over moral hazard. You're saying, the law makes landlords liable for theft so that they'll do their duty to secure their building. I'm not arguing this point; moral hazard makes a lot of sense. If you want to argue that Trib Corp should have some negligence liability here, fine. But there is no sense in which that kind of liability mitigates the criminal actions of others. If I go into a building for which the landlord is liable for theft, and I steal $5000 worth of crap (or cause $5000 worth of damage), I'm going to be prosecuted for that if I'm caught, no matter the landlord's liability. Criminal liability isn't shared due to negligence, and when criminal liability is shared (among accomplices and co-conspirators), it's not divided up among the parties --- because that would be silly.
              • Retric 11y ago
                Morale hazard does play into what they can clam as damages. If reverting the defacement using there CMS system costs 500$ and results in 2,000 in lost profit NP. If it takes someone a few hours to verify that was the only change, NP. But, they can't claim time related to revoking his permissions because they should have done that in the first place. Ditto for performing a security audit ect. This is a normal user using there CMS system, not an admin or developer messing with things.