Call Us (888) 977-2238

Llámenos (888) 977-2238

En Español

logo-black-small

En Español

Negligent Security in California: When a Property Owner Pays for an Assault

  • Personal Injury, Premises Liability
Dimly lit underground parking garage at night
Leer este artículo en español →

Quick answer

Sometimes. A California property owner can be liable for an assault on its property when it failed to take reasonable steps against a foreseeable crime. Security guards usually require proof of prior similar crimes; simpler precautions need less. Most claims must be filed within two years.

Sometimes. A California property owner can be held liable for an assault or robbery on its property when it failed to take reasonable steps against a crime it could foresee. Low-cost precautions can be required on ordinary foreseeability, while expensive ones like security guards usually require evidence of prior similar crimes. Most claims must be filed within two years.

We are B&D Law Group, APLC, a Los Angeles personal injury firm. This guide explains when an apartment complex, bar, store, hotel or parking lot owner can be responsible for a criminal attack, and what evidence matters.

What negligent security means

Under Civil Code section 1714(a), everyone is responsible for injuries caused by a lack of ordinary care in managing their property. A negligent security claim applies that rule to crime: the property owner did not cause the attack, but it failed to take reasonable precautions that could have prevented it.

The attacker is usually the person most at fault, but attackers rarely have insurance or money to pay a judgment. The property owner and its insurer often do, which is why these claims matter.

The key question: was the crime foreseeable?

  • Security guards need strong proof. In Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993), the California Supreme Court held that a duty to hire security guards requires a high degree of foreseeability, which is rarely, if ever, shown without prior similar incidents on the property.
  • Simpler steps need less. In Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005), the Court explained a sliding scale: the more burdensome the precaution, the more foreseeable the crime must be. Precautions that cost little can be required on ordinary foreseeability.

In practice, evidence of earlier assaults, robberies or break-ins at the same property, and of what the owner knew about them, is often the center of the case.

When a business can see the danger coming

Delgado also held that a bar owes its patrons a duty to take reasonable, relatively simple and minimally burdensome steps once its staff know of an imminent threat. In that case a security guard saw a confrontation building between groups of customers. That duty can apply even where there is no history of prior incidents.

Apartment complexes and landlords

Claims against landlords are fact-heavy. In Castaneda v. Olsher (2007), the California Supreme Court held that a landlord has no duty to refuse to rent to suspected gang members unless gang violence is extraordinarily foreseeable, and that a duty to evict a dangerous tenant exists only where violence is highly foreseeable. Prior incidents tied to the same people or the same conditions carry the most weight.

Evidence that matters in these cases

  • Prior incident reports kept by the property owner or its security company
  • Police calls for service and crime reports at the address
  • Security contracts, guard schedules and post orders
  • Maintenance records for locks, gates, lighting and cameras
  • Surveillance video, which is often recorded over quickly
  • Tenant or customer complaints about safety before the attack

How damages are shared

Under Civil Code section 1431.2, each defendant’s liability for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, is several only, so each pays in proportion to its share of fault. That limit does not apply to economic damages such as medical bills and lost earnings.

Deadlines

Most negligent security claims must be filed within two years of the injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. If the property is owned by a city, county or other public entity, a government claim is generally due within six months under Government Code section 911.2.

What to do after an attack on someone else’s property

  1. Get medical care and keep every record.
  2. Report the attack to police and get the report number.
  3. Photograph the scene, including broken locks, gates or lights.
  4. Write down the names of witnesses and any staff or security on duty.
  5. Ask the property owner or manager in writing to keep the surveillance video.

For more on property owner liability, see our guides to California premises liability law, California’s dram shop law and what to do after a slip and fall.

Frequently asked questions

Can I sue an apartment complex if I was attacked there?

Possibly. A landlord can be liable when it failed to take reasonable steps against a crime it could foresee. Courts look closely at prior incidents on the property and at what the landlord knew.

Do there have to be prior crimes on the property?

For a claim that the owner should have hired security guards, usually yes. The California Supreme Court has said that duty is rarely, if ever, found without prior similar incidents. Simpler, low-cost precautions can be required on a lower showing.

Can I sue a bar if another customer assaulted me?

You may be able to. When bar staff know a fight or attack is about to happen, the bar must take reasonable, minimally burdensome steps to protect patrons, such as separating the people involved or calling police.

What if the attacker was never caught?

A negligent security claim is based on the property owner’s own failure to act, so it can go forward even if the attacker is never identified.

How long do I have to file?

Generally two years from the injury. If the property belongs to a city, county or other public entity, a government claim is usually due within six months.

Talk to a lawyer about your case

If you were attacked at an apartment, bar, store, hotel or parking lot in California, our premises liability attorneys can review what the owner knew and what it failed to do. Call (888) 977-2238 or use our contact page.

Attorney advertising. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. If you have been injured, speak with a licensed attorney about your specific situation.

Marketing by Maldonado Marketing