When a violent crime occurs at a commercial property such as a hotel, apartment complex, shopping center, or office building, the victim of the crime may consider bringing a negligent security claim against the owner or manager of the premises.
Negligent security, a subcategory of premises liability law, is based on the idea that property owners are in a better position than visitors to know about any potential dangers, such as the risk that robberies, assaults (including sexual assaults), and other violent crimes could take place on the property. Therefore, the property owners/managers should take reasonable steps to secure the premises and keep customers, guests, residents, and other invitees safe from foreseeable violent crimes.
Establishing a negligent security case is similar to other negligence cases, but with the additional complicating factor of third-party involvement. In general, plaintiffs must demonstrate that:
Property owners are not expected to prevent all possible crimes that may occur on their properties—they are only required to take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks. The success of the plaintiff’s claim in negligent security cases often hinges on the foreseeability of the crime in question.
When determining whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a violent crime would occur on a property, there are many factors that can come into play to determine whether such a crime was foreseeable. It may be sufficient to show that it is located in a high-crime area, or even that other, non-violent crimes had previously been committed on the property. The defendant property owner or manager need not have been aware of the risk of that exact type of crime occurring, only something reasonably similar. Courts may consider a variety of factors, such as:
Establishing a negligent security claim involves a variety of fact-specific inquiries, and requires a thorough investigation and experienced legal counsel. At Leighton Panoff Law, we are experts in negligent security litigation. With more than 35 years of experience in this field, attorney John Leighton is the author of Litigating Premises Security Cases, a two-volume textbook used by lawyers nationwide on how to investigate and litigate cases involving negligent security. Mr. Leighton is the President of the National Crime Victim Bar Association and frequently lectures on the topic and is consulted by lawyers across the country for assistance with negligent security cases. As the Chairman of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America/American Association for Justice Inadequate Security Litigation Group, Mr. Leighton is very familiar with what it takes to investigate, develop and try negligent security and violent crime cases. Leighton Panoff Law’s Max Panoff plays a leadership role in the National Crime Victim Bar Association. The Leighton Panoff Law team knows security, violent crime and sex abuse cases. They are skilled in working with crime victims and their families. Visit https://leightonlaw.com/negligent-security-attorney/ to learn more, or call us today at 888.988.1774!
In negligent security cases, foreseeability refers to whether a property owner or manager should reasonably have anticipated the possibility of a violent crime occurring on their premises. It doesn’t require predicting the exact crime or perpetrator, but rather recognizing general risks—such as those that come with being in a high-crime area or having a history of prior incidents on the property. If it’s shown that similar crimes occurred in the past, or that the owner was aware of the need for security but failed to act, a court may find the crime foreseeable.
No, property owners are not expected to prevent every possible crime. Instead, the law requires that they take reasonable steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable crimes. This means if there are warning signs—like a pattern of criminal activity in the area or on the premises—owners and managers must act accordingly. Failure to install cameras, lights, alarms, or employ security in the face of known risks can lead to liability if someone is harmed. The key is whether reasonable security was in place for foreseeable dangers.
Courts consider multiple factors when deciding if a crime was foreseeable. These may include the history of similar crimes on or near the property, how recently those crimes occurred, the area’s general crime rate, and whether the business is located in a high-crime neighborhood. Courts also evaluate whether the property owner acknowledged security risks but failed to take appropriate action. Even non-violent crimes, like thefts, can indicate a foreseeable risk that justifies greater security measures from the property owner.
No, the crime does not need to be identical to prior incidents. It is sufficient to show that a reasonably similar crime occurred in the past. For example, if an assault occurred where there had previously been burglaries or other suspicious activity, a court may still consider the violent crime foreseeable. What matters is whether the nature and circumstances of the prior incidents could have put the property owner on notice that violent crime was a risk that required enhanced security measures.
Yes, properties in high-crime areas generally carry a heightened duty to implement proper security. Courts recognize that owners and managers of businesses in such locations are—or should be—aware of the increased risk of criminal acts. This means they may be expected to install better lighting, employ trained security personnel, use surveillance systems, or implement other measures to protect guests, tenants, and visitors. If a violent crime occurs in a known high-risk area and security is lacking, that can strengthen a negligent security claim.
If a property owner or manager recognized the need for security and failed to take appropriate action, that failure may strongly support a negligent security claim. For instance, if there were previous break-ins or complaints about safety and the owner took no steps to increase lighting, install cameras, or provide guards, they may be found to have breached their duty. Courts assess whether the owner’s inaction contributed to the crime and whether proper security would likely have prevented the harm.
Leighton Panoff Law is a nationally recognized leader in negligent security litigation. With over 35 years of experience, attorney John Leighton literally wrote the book on the subject—Litigating Premises Security Cases—used by lawyers across the country. As President of the National Crime Victim Bar Association and Chair of the AAJ Inadequate Security Litigation Group, Mr. Leighton brings unmatched expertise. The firm’s team, including Max Panoff, is deeply experienced in working with victims of violent crime and sex abuse. Contact Leighton Panoff Law for seasoned representation you can trust.
A nationally-recognized trial lawyer who handles catastrophic injury and death cases. He manages Leighton Law, P.A. trial lawyers, with offices in Miami and Orlando, Florida. He is President of The National Crime Victim Bar Association, author of the 2-volume textbook,Litigating Premises Security Cases, and past Chairman of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America’s Motor Vehicle, Highway & Premises Liability Section. Having won some of the largest verdicts in Florida history, Mr. Leighton is listed inThe Best Lawyers in America (14 years), “Top Lawyers” in the South Florida Legal Guide (15 years), Top 100 Florida SuperLawyer™ and Florida SuperLawyers (14 years), “Orlando Legal Elite” by Orlando Style magazine, and FloridaTrend magazine “Florida Legal Elite