What Negligent Security Injury Claims Ask
Negligent security injury claims ask whether a property owner or business should have foreseen a crime on its property and taken reasonable steps to prevent it. The person who committed the assault is responsible for that conduct. A premises claim is a separate question about the property owner’s own care. California courts look closely at foreseeability, the burden of the proposed safety measure and whether a different measure would have prevented the harm.
Because of that, these cases are fact specific and often hard. No rule makes every owner liable for every crime on its land.
The General Duty of Care
California Civil Code section 1714 makes people responsible for harm caused by a lack of ordinary care in managing property. The text is on the California Legislature site. That duty can include reasonable steps to protect people from foreseeable crimes by others.
However, courts limit that duty, because crime is hard to predict and security costs money. So the analysis turns on how foreseeable the crime was and what the owner would have had to do about it.
Foreseeability and Prior Notice
The California Supreme Court first addressed this in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center in 1993. It held that a duty to provide hired security guards generally requires a high degree of foreseeability, which usually means prior similar incidents on the property. A general sense that an area has crime was not enough.
Later, in Delgado v. Trax Bar and Grill in 2005, the court described a sliding scale. The more burdensome the measure, the more foreseeability it requires. So courts may require simple, low cost measures on a lesser showing, while expensive ones like guards require more.
In practice, evidence of notice can include police calls to the property, prior incident reports, tenant complaints and the owner’s own security records. Public records requests to the local police may reveal call histories. Those requests follow their own process and timelines.
Reasonable Measures
What counts as reasonable also depends on the setting. Possible measures include lighting, locks, gates, cameras, trimmed landscaping, staff training and, in some cases, guards. A broken lock that management knew about is a different issue from the absence of a guard.
Courts also look at what the owner actually knew in the moment. In Delgado, the court noted that a bar’s staff may have a duty to respond to a fight they can see developing. That kind of immediate notice can support a duty to take modest steps.
Control of the Property
Next, the defendant must have controlled the place where the attack happened. A landlord, a property manager, a business tenant and a security contractor may each control different areas. Leases and contracts often show who was responsible for lighting, locks or patrols.
Apartment complexes raise their own issues. In Castaneda v. Olsher in 2007, the court addressed when a landlord’s duty extends to violence by other tenants. That case shows how much the facts of a particular complex matter.
Causation in Negligent Security Injury Claims
Even with a duty and a breach, the injured person must show that the missing measure would likely have prevented the harm. Defendants often contest that link. For example, a better light might not have stopped a planned attack, while a working gate might have kept an intruder out.
So experts in security practices sometimes address that question. Their opinions depend on the facts of the specific property and incident.
Sharing Fault With the Attacker
When a jury finds an owner negligent, it may divide fault between the owner and the attacker. Under Civil Code section 1431.2, each defendant’s share of noneconomic damages generally follows its own percentage of fault. That rule can significantly affect what an owner pays. Read more in California comparative negligence.
Evidence for Negligent Security Injury Claims
First, report the crime to police and keep the report number. Then photograph the scene, including lighting, locks, gates and cameras. Write down the time and what you saw before and during the attack.
- Names of witnesses, staff and security officers
- Requests to preserve video from the property
- Copies of complaints you or others made about safety
- Medical records and photos of injuries kept private
Ask the property in writing to preserve video and incident logs. More on preservation is in preserving photos, video and witness information.
Deadlines and Public Property
If the attack happened on public property, such as a transit station or a city park, claims against the agency follow the Government Claims Act. Those claims generally must be presented within six months, and public entities have specific immunities. Read more in California government injury claims.
Claims against private owners follow the general injury deadline. Even so, waiting can mean lost video and faded memories, so early steps still matter.
Privacy and Support
Victims of crime may be eligible for help through the California Victim Compensation Board, which has its own rules. Meanwhile, keep details of the attack off social media. Share them only with police, medical providers and anyone advising you.
Negligent security injury claims take careful legal review. The rules on foreseeability are strict, and the facts decide.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different.