A woman walks to her car in an apartment parking lot in Lauderhill. Two men attack her from behind, beat her unconscious, and steal her purse. She survives but spends three weeks in the hospital. The parking lot had no lights. The gate had been broken for six months. The apartment complex had received nine police calls for assaults and robberies in the past year. The landlord did nothing.
That’s a negligent security case. The landlord didn’t commit the crime, but Florida law may hold the landlord liable for failing to protect tenants from a danger the landlord should have seen coming. The central question in these cases is not whether a crime happened — it’s whether the property owner knew or should have known that criminal activity was reasonably foreseeable and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Get answers to your real estate, landlord-tenant, or personal injury questions. Free consultations available for Florida residents.
What counts as a negligent security claim
Negligent security is a subset of premises liability. You’re not suing the criminal. You’re suing the property owner for failing to use reasonable care to protect lawful visitors from foreseeable criminal acts. These cases show up in parking lots, apartment hallways, hotel rooms, shopping centers, parking garages, bars, and office buildings.
Common scenarios include assaults, shootings, robberies, sexual assaults, carjackings, and battery. The claim focuses on what the property owner did or didn’t do — broken gates, missing cameras, no security guards, inadequate lighting, ignoring complaints, failing to control access. The property owner isn’t accused of causing the crime. The accusation is that the owner created or allowed conditions that made the crime possible.
Foreseeability is the whole ballgame
Florida courts don’t treat property owners as insurers of every visitor’s safety. A crime happening on your property doesn’t automatically mean you’re liable. The legal fight usually centers on one question: was the crime reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances?
Foreseeability can be proven through prior similar crimes on the property, similar crimes nearby, repeated trespassing or disturbances, police calls and incident reports, prior warnings from tenants or employees, the property’s location in a high-crime area, known defects in gates or locks, and the security measures used at comparable properties. The most important distinction Florida courts make is between general crime in a neighborhood and specific prior incidents that match the later crime in type, location, timing, and circumstances.
Say an apartment complex in Pompano Beach had three armed robberies in the parking lot over eight months. All three happened after dark. All three involved someone forcing their way into a tenant’s car. Then a fourth tenant is carjacked in the same lot at night. That pattern makes the fourth crime foreseeable. But if the prior incidents were package thefts from doorsteps and the later crime was a shooting in the parking lot, the connection is weaker. Florida courts scrutinize whether the prior events were sufficiently similar to put the owner on notice.
The case law that shapes these claims
Florida’s Supreme Court decision in Stevens v. Jefferson is the foundational case for apartment-complex liability. The Court explained that prior similar incidents are relevant to whether a later criminal act was foreseeable and whether the owner had a duty to take security precautions. The case is cited constantly in negligent security litigation because it addresses the similarity requirement, the relevance of crime reports, and the need to evaluate the totality of the circumstances.
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne is the key case for hotels and businesses open to the public. The Florida Supreme Court considered an assault at a hotel and held that courts must look at the character of the property, the nature of prior incidents, the location of those incidents, the time period over which they occurred, and whether they were sufficiently similar to the crime at issue. Defense attorneys love this case because it sets a high bar for proving foreseeability.
South v. United States involved a federal employee attacked in a government parking lot. The Florida Supreme Court recognized that criminal conduct by a third party doesn’t automatically eliminate a property owner’s duty. Foreseeability and the relationship between the parties remain central. This case is useful when the defendant argues that it had no duty because the assailant was an independent criminal actor.
District courts of appeal have addressed evidentiary standards in cases like Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Jeffreys, which discussed whether a business had notice of foreseeable criminal conduct based on prior incidents. These decisions turn on detailed facts, and the exact holdings should be checked before relying on them. But the pattern is consistent: Florida courts require specific evidence that the owner knew or should have known about a recurring danger.
The four elements you have to prove
A negligent security claim requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. Every personal injury case has those elements, but they play out differently when the injury comes from a third party’s criminal act.
Duty depends on the relationship between the parties. A landlord owes a duty to tenants. A hotel owes a duty to guests. A shopping center owes a duty to customers. A business owes a duty to invitees. Your status on the property matters — invitee, licensee, or trespasser — because it affects the scope of the duty. An invitee gets the highest level of protection. A trespasser gets almost none.
Breach is about what the owner failed to do after criminal activity became foreseeable. Allegations can include failure to provide adequate lighting, failure to repair locks or gates, failure to control access, failure to maintain cameras, failure to provide security personnel, failure to respond to known threats, failure to warn occupants, failure to investigate repeated incidents, and failure to enforce access policies. The standard is reasonableness under the circumstances, not perfection. But if a gate has been broken for months and the owner does nothing, that’s a problem.
Causation requires connecting the security failure to the injury. You have to show that a reasonable security measure would probably have prevented or reduced the risk of the crime. For example, a functioning gate would have prevented unauthorized entry, adequate lighting would have deterred the assailant, a security officer would have intervened, or a repaired lock would have kept the criminal out of the building. Causation gets contested hard in these cases because the criminal’s conduct is always a superseding cause. The owner will argue that no security measure could have stopped a determined attacker.
Damages include medical expenses, future treatment, lost income, reduced earning capacity, pain and suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, and property damage. Wrongful death damages apply when the crime results in death. Economic damages need documentation — bills, records, employment history, expert testimony. Noneconomic damages come from medical evidence, testimony from the injured person and family, and proof of how the injuries changed the person’s life.
What makes a crime foreseeable
Foreseeability is fact-specific and case-specific. The strongest evidence is prior incidents on the same property. If the same apartment complex had three assaults in the parking lot over six months, that’s notice. Important details include the type of crime, whether it involved violence, the exact location, the time of day, whether the same entrance or parking area was involved, how recent the incidents were, whether they were recurring, and whether management received complaints or police notifications.
Crimes near the property can also be relevant, especially if they occurred in a shared parking area, adjoining property, or connected development. But a remote or dissimilar incident carries less weight. If there was a burglary two blocks away six years ago, that probably doesn’t make a shooting in your parking lot foreseeable today.
The nature of the property matters. Late-night businesses, bars, nightclubs, hotels, apartment complexes, parking garages, convenience stores, and properties with frequent public access may face higher expectations for security. That doesn’t create automatic liability, but it’s a factor in what reasonable care requires. A nightclub in downtown Fort Lauderdale that stays open until 4 a.m. can’t claim it had no reason to anticipate trouble.
Internal records can make or break a case. Tenant complaints, incident logs, security reports, maintenance requests, emails, work orders, employee reports, prior warnings, and records of trespassing are all discoverable. A property owner who has documentation showing repeated notice of a problem and no meaningful response is going to have a hard time at trial. Conversely, if the records show the owner responded promptly to every complaint and maintained security systems diligently, that’s a strong defense.
Police and public records help establish the history of criminal activity. Police calls, incident reports, arrest records, and emergency service records are often obtained through subpoenas or public records requests. Not every police call proves negligence, but a pattern of calls for violent crimes at the same location is powerful evidence. Florida’s public records law, Chapter 119, makes most government records accessible, but you need to know what to ask for and how to authenticate it for trial.
Security measures that get litigated
Security experts testify about whether the property’s security was reasonable. Frequently disputed measures include perimeter fencing, controlled-access gates, functioning locks, key-card systems, door and window security, adequate lighting, security cameras, camera monitoring and retention policies, security guards, patrol frequency, emergency call stations, signage and warnings, visitor registration, parking lot design, landscaping that obstructs visibility, alarm systems, staff training, and written security protocols.
The existence of a security measure doesn’t end the inquiry. A camera that was installed but not recording, a guard who was present but untrained, or a gate that stayed open defeats the purpose. Defense attorneys will argue that the plaintiff is demanding unrealistic security or that the proposed measure wouldn’t have stopped the crime. Plaintiffs respond with expert testimony about what comparable properties do and what would have been effective under the circumstances.
One counterintuitive reality in these cases: properties with some security measures sometimes face greater liability than properties with none. If you advertise a gated community with 24-hour security and then leave the gate open and fire the guard, you’ve created an expectation and then breached it. A tenant who relied on your promise of a secure environment has a stronger claim than a tenant who moved into a property that never promised anything.
Landlords and apartment complexes
Florida residential landlords face negligent security allegations based on conditions in apartment parking lots, common hallways, stairwells, laundry rooms, clubhouses, pool areas, building entrances, shared pedestrian paths, and perimeter gates. A landlord’s responsibilities come from the lease, common-law premises liability principles, Chapter 83 of the Florida Statutes (the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act), building codes, and representations made to tenants.
Section 83.51 addresses a landlord’s obligations concerning maintenance and compliance with building, housing, and health codes. The statute doesn’t spell out every premises liability duty, but it’s the starting point. A negligent security claim also involves common-law duties, voluntary undertakings, and the landlord’s actual conduct. If the lease says the landlord will maintain exterior lighting and the landlord lets half the lights burn out for months, that’s both a breach of contract and potential negligence.
Security promises create additional exposure. If a landlord advertises gated access, 24-hour security, security patrols, controlled access, surveillance, or a safe and secure community, that marketing language matters. It’s not automatic liability, but it’s relevant to the scope of the undertaking, tenant expectations, notice, and whether the owner performed the promised service with reasonable care. Attorneys who handle these cases routinely subpoena marketing materials, website screenshots, and leasing brochures.
Florida law also examines whether voluntary security services were performed negligently. If a property owner voluntarily provides security, the owner may not be required to provide every possible measure, but negligent performance of the service it chose to provide can create liability. A landlord who hires a security guard but doesn’t train the guard, doesn’t give the guard a working phone, and doesn’t tell the guard what to do in an emergency has arguably made things worse, not better.
Businesses, hotels, and commercial properties
Commercial property cases often involve the relationship between a business and its customers. A business may have duties relating to parking areas, entrances and exits, restrooms, elevators and stairwells, loading areas, and adjacent walkways. Hotels face special scrutiny because they control guest room access, parking areas, and common areas, and they make safety representations to guests who are often unfamiliar with the neighborhood.
Businesses defend these claims by arguing the criminal act was not foreseeable, prior incidents were not sufficiently similar, the incident occurred outside the business’s control, the criminal actor was an independent third party, the proposed security measure wouldn’t have prevented the attack, the plaintiff wasn’t lawfully on the property, or the plaintiff’s own conduct contributed to the injury. These defenses work when the crime was sudden, unusual, or involved facts that no security measure could have prevented.
Hotels get sued frequently because guests are vulnerable. They’re in an unfamiliar place, often carrying valuables, and they rely on the hotel’s representations about security. A hotel that advertises secure access but leaves side doors propped open or gives out room numbers over the phone without verifying identity is asking for trouble. Expert testimony in hotel cases often focuses on industry standards for key-card systems, camera coverage, lighting, and staff training.
Comparative negligence and the 50% bar
Florida’s comparative negligence statute, Section 768.81, changed significantly in recent years. Under the current modified comparative negligence rule, a claimant whose percentage of fault is greater than 50% is barred from recovering damages. If the claimant’s fault is 50% or less, recoverable damages are reduced according to the claimant’s percentage of fault.
Defense attorneys will argue that the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to the injury. Examples include intoxication, entering a restricted area, ignoring warnings, or voluntarily confronting a known danger. These arguments are fact-specific and don’t automatically defeat a claim, but they can reduce damages or eliminate recovery entirely if the jury finds the plaintiff more than 50% at fault.
Say a hotel guest ignores a sign warning that the pool area is closed after 10 p.m., goes to the pool alone at midnight, and is assaulted by someone who entered through an unlocked gate. The hotel will argue the guest was comparatively negligent for ignoring the warning and going to a closed area alone. The guest will argue the hotel was negligent for failing to lock the gate and for failing to provide adequate lighting. A jury could find both parties at fault and apportion percentages. If the jury finds the guest 60% at fault, the guest recovers nothing under Florida’s current statute.
Statute of limitations and notice requirements
Florida’s general negligence statute of limitations is found in Section 95.11, Florida Statutes. Recent legislative changes have affected limitations periods for negligence actions, and the statute should be checked for the current deadline. The limitations period depends on the type of claim, the date the cause of action accrued, the identity of the defendant, and whether a special statute applies.
The general deadline for negligence actions is currently shorter than it used to be. Before 2023, most negligence claims had a four-year statute of limitations. That changed. The current statute should be reviewed for claims arising after the effective date of the amendment. Missing the deadline is fatal. There’s no way around it.
If the property is owned or operated by a governmental entity, additional requirements apply under Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. These include presuit notice, specific notice recipients, time limits for presenting the claim, damage limitations, sovereign immunity restrictions, and special litigation procedures. A claim involving a city, county, school district, public housing authority, or other governmental entity requires different steps from a claim against a private landlord or business. The presuit notice requirement is strict and unforgiving.
Wrongful death claims are governed by Chapter 768, Florida’s Wrongful Death Act. The personal representative brings the action for the benefit of statutory survivors and the estate. Damages and procedural requirements differ from ordinary personal injury claims. The statute of limitations for wrongful death is separate and should be checked independently.
Evidence to preserve immediately
Security footage and electronic records get overwritten. Many systems retain video for only 30 to 90 days. If you wait, it’s gone. A preservation letter should go out within days of the incident, not weeks or months. The letter should identify the incident, location, date, time range, types of records sought, and the obligation to preserve electronically stored information under Florida law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Critical evidence includes surveillance video, access control logs, key card records, gate and alarm records, incident reports, police records, 911 recordings, emergency dispatch data, text messages and emails, tenant complaints, maintenance and repair records, lighting inspections, security contracts, guard schedules and training records, prior incident logs, photographs and video of the location, medical records and bills, employment and wage records, witness contact information, social media posts, and lease documents.
Photographs of the scene should be taken as soon as possible. Lighting conditions change. Landscaping gets trimmed. Gates get repaired. If you’re trying to prove the parking lot was dark and overgrown, you need photos from the day of the incident or as close to it as possible. Waiting six months and then taking photos of a well-lit, freshly landscaped lot doesn’t help.
Witness contact information disappears fast. Other tenants move out. Employees quit. Bystanders forget details. Get names, phone numbers, and addresses immediately. Recorded statements are even better, but at minimum, lock down the contact information before it’s gone.
Proving notice
Notice can be actual or constructive. Actual notice exists when the owner received a complaint, reviewed an incident report, was told about a prior crime, had employees observe a dangerous condition, received police notification, or knew that a gate, lock, or light was defective. Actual notice is usually proven through documents, emails, text messages, testimony from employees or tenants, and records showing the owner was informed of the problem.
Constructive notice is harder to prove. It requires showing the condition existed long enough, was recurring, or was otherwise discoverable through reasonable inspection. For physical property defects like a broken step, constructive notice might be established by showing the step was broken for weeks. For criminal activity, constructive notice usually requires a pattern of prior incidents or circumstances that should have alerted a reasonable owner to the risk.
The difference matters because a property owner can’t claim ignorance if the evidence shows actual notice. If the landlord received written complaints about trespassers and assaults and did nothing, the landlord can’t later argue it didn’t know there was a problem. Emails and text messages are gold in these cases because they timestamp the notice and eliminate any dispute about when the owner knew.
The role of expert witnesses
Security experts testify about whether the crime was foreseeable, whether the property’s security plan was reasonable, whether the owner followed industry practices, whether lighting, access control, patrols, or cameras were adequate, whether a proposed measure would likely have deterred or prevented the crime, and whether the owner’s policies were implemented and enforced. Experts don’t decide legal questions like whether a duty existed, but they provide opinions on what reasonable care required under the circumstances.
Property owners retain their own experts to argue the incident was unforeseeable, the security measures were reasonable, the criminal act was too sudden to prevent, the proposed measure wouldn’t have stopped the assailant, and the plaintiff’s theory is speculative. Expert battles in negligent security cases often come down to industry standards, cost-benefit analysis, and whether the proposed security measure was feasible and effective.
Florida’s expert-witness rules require that the expert’s opinion be based on sufficient facts or data, the opinion be the product of reliable principles and methods, and the expert apply those principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. A security expert who has never worked in Florida, doesn’t know local crime patterns, and offers generic opinions about what “should” have been done is vulnerable on cross-examination. The best experts have hands-on experience with security design, implementation, and investigation in similar properties.
Common defenses property owners raise
Property owners argue no legal duty existed, the crime was not foreseeable, there were no similar prior incidents, the owner lacked actual or constructive notice, the security measures were reasonable under the circumstances, the criminal act was an unforeseeable intervening cause, the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury, the plaintiff was a trespasser or licensee owed a lesser duty, the proposed security measure would not have prevented the crime, the owner had no control over the area where the crime occurred, and the plaintiff’s damages are exaggerated or unsupported.
The “no duty” argument usually fails if the plaintiff was lawfully on the property as a tenant, guest, or customer. But it can succeed if the crime occurred off the property, in an area the owner didn’t control, or involved a plaintiff who was trespassing. The foreseeability defense is the most common and often the most effective. If the property had no prior similar incidents and the crime was sudden and unusual, the owner has a strong argument that it couldn’t have anticipated what happened.
The intervening cause defense focuses on the criminal’s conduct. The owner argues that the criminal’s decision to commit the crime was independent, unforeseeable, and superseded any negligence by the owner. This defense works better when the crime was highly unusual or involved planning and deliberation that no security measure could have detected. It works less well when the crime was opportunistic and the security failure created the opportunity.
Whether you are buying a home, dealing with a landlord dispute, or recovering from an injury, Eric Goldman can help. Serving clients throughout Florida.
When property owners settle and when they fight
Property owners settle when the facts are bad. A property with multiple prior similar incidents, documented complaints, broken security equipment, and clear causation is a lawsuit the owner doesn’t want in front of a jury. Settlements in serious injury cases can range from mid-six figures to over a million dollars depending on the severity of the injury, the strength of the liability case, and the plaintiff’s economic damages.
Property owners fight when they believe the crime was unforeseeable, the prior incidents were dissimilar, the plaintiff’s comparative negligence was high, the proposed security measure wouldn’t have worked, or the damages are speculative. They also fight when the plaintiff’s demand is unreasonable or when the insurer has determined that taking the case to trial is cheaper than settling.
Insurance coverage plays a role. Most commercial general liability policies cover premises liability claims, but they often have exclusions for assault and battery or intentional acts. Property owners sometimes argue the crime falls within an exclusion and the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify. Coverage disputes can delay resolution and affect settlement negotiations.
A plaintiff injured by a crime on someone else’s property in South Florida should talk to an attorney immediately. Evidence disappears, witnesses move, and video gets erased. The statute of limitations is not generous. Waiting six months and then trying to build a case from scratch rarely works. Property owners and their insurers document everything and start building their defense the day the incident is reported. Plaintiffs should do the same.
