When a property owner ignores a known danger and someone is harmed by a foreseeable crime, the law can hold that owner accountable.
Negligent security is a form of premises liability that arises when a person is injured by the criminal act of a third party in a place where the property owner or manager failed to provide reasonable security. The core question is foreseeability. If prior crimes, the nature of the location, or other warning signs made an attack foreseeable, the law may require the owner to have taken reasonable precautions, such as adequate lighting, functioning locks, security personnel, or working cameras.
These cases commonly arise at apartment complexes, parking garages, hotels, bars and nightclubs, shopping centers, and gyms.
Florida recognizes negligent security claims as a subset of premises liability, and the duty owed depends in part on the injured person's status on the property. In 2023, House Bill 837 added Section 768.0706 of the Florida Statutes, which creates a framework for evaluating the liability of multifamily residential property owners and provides a presumption against liability for owners who substantially implement specified security measures.
Under changes enacted by House Bill 837 in 2023, the general deadline to file a negligence lawsuit in Florida is now two years from the date of the injury under Section 95.11(5)(a) of the Florida Statutes, reduced from the four-year period that applied to injuries occurring before March 24, 2023.
The same 2023 law adopted a modified comparative negligence standard under Section 768.81, which bars recovery entirely for a plaintiff found to be more than fifty percent at fault for their own injury. Below that threshold, a recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault.
Because the 2023 changes altered how these claims are analyzed, current knowledge of the statute is important to how a negligent security case is built and defended.
In the District of Columbia, a property owner's duty to protect visitors from foreseeable criminal acts is governed by common-law premises liability principles. A plaintiff generally must show that the criminal conduct was foreseeable and that the owner failed to take reasonable measures in response.
In the District of Columbia, the deadline to file most personal injury lawsuits is three years from the date of the injury.
The District follows the doctrine of contributory negligence, one of the strictest fault rules in the country, under which a plaintiff found even slightly at fault can be barred from recovering. A statutory exception softens this rule for pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users injured in vehicle collisions.
The District's contributory negligence rule can make these claims challenging, which is why the evidence of the owner's knowledge and inaction must be developed thoroughly.
Alec Kohn has been featured in the media for his work on negligent security and related matters, including cases he originated and handled that drew coverage from South Florida news outlets. He litigated these cases at a prominent civil litigation firm before founding his own practice.
The firm investigates the property's history, obtains records of prior incidents, and builds the case for what a reasonable owner should have done. You work directly with the attorney handling your case, and the firm answers 24 hours a day.
The figures on this page are drawn from the following primary and secondary sources. Statutes and penalties change; this summary is reviewed by the firm and is not a substitute for legal advice on your specific matter.
