Roughly 14% of all violent crime in Los Angeles County occurs on commercial property where the owner could have prevented it: apartment buildings with broken gates, parking structures without lighting or cameras, hotels and bars with insufficient security staff. California recognizes a civil claim against the property owner when the assault was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable preventive measures. Borna Houman Law represents assault, robbery, and shooting victims throughout LA County on a contingency basis.
Key Takeaway: California negligent security claims arise under Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 and Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666. A property owner is liable when a third-party criminal assault was foreseeable and the owner failed to provide reasonable security measures. The foreseeability test depends on prior similar incidents and totality of circumstances. The deadline is two years from the assault under CCP § 335.1; six months for government entities.
This guide explains how California negligent security cases are built, what evidence drives liability and damages, and how to evaluate a potential claim against an apartment landlord, hotel operator, retail center, or parking facility.
What is a negligent security claim under California law?
A negligent security claim is a premises liability tort against a commercial property owner or possessor whose failure to provide reasonable security measures was a substantial factor in a third party’s criminal assault on a business invitee or tenant. The legal foundation is Rowland v. Christian’s general duty of reasonable care, narrowed for criminal conduct by Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza, Sharon P. v. Arman Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, and Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205.
The duty is triggered when the assault was foreseeable. Foreseeability is assessed on a sliding scale: the more burdensome the security measure (live armed guards), the higher the foreseeability required; the less burdensome the measure (a functioning lock or working light), the lower the foreseeability threshold. This is the Ann M. balancing test, refined in Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224.
What kinds of properties get sued for negligent security?
Apartment complexes (especially those with prior break-ins or assaults), hotels and motels, bars and nightclubs, parking lots and parking structures, college dormitories, retail shopping centers, ATM vestibules, gas stations open late, and short-term rental properties. The common thread is that the owner derives revenue from inviting the public or a tenant population onto the premises and exercises control over the physical environment where the assault occurred.
What proves foreseeability in a negligent security case?
Prior similar incidents at the same property or in the immediate vicinity are the strongest evidence. California courts evaluate the number, nature, recency, and similarity of prior crimes. A 2024 assault in the lobby of an apartment building that suffered an armed robbery in 2022 and two car break-ins in 2023 has strong foreseeability. The Sharon P. court held that a single prior assault on the same premises was not enough on its own; the Delgado court held that ongoing tension and a pattern of disturbances inside a bar created foreseeability of an outside assault.
How do we obtain prior incident data?
Three sources: LAPD CompStat and CrimeMapping.com data showing reports within a defined radius and timeframe; LAPD incident reports for the specific address obtained through Public Records Act requests; and discovery of the defendant’s own security incident logs, complaint history, and security service contracts. In our experience preparing Los Angeles negligent security cases, the defendant’s internal incident log is the single most valuable document. It often shows a pattern the property owner knew about and ignored.
What security measures are considered reasonable in California?
Reasonable security is a sliding scale tied to the foreseeability of the crime. The table below outlines the measures most commonly required by California courts and security industry standards (ASIS Security Management Standards):
| Measure | Typical Cost | When Required (Foreseeability Level) |
|---|---|---|
| Functioning exterior locks, deadbolts | $150 – $400/door | Always required for residential |
| Lobby and perimeter lighting (ASIS minimum 5 fc) | $2,000 – $8,000 | Always required |
| Working surveillance cameras with recording | $6,000 – $25,000 | Required when prior crime history exists |
| Access control (key fob, code, intercom) | $10,000 – $30,000 | Multi-family with foreseeable risk |
| Unarmed security guard (1 shift) | $120,000/yr | Required after pattern of property crime |
| Armed security guard | $200,000/yr | Required only when violent crime is highly foreseeable |
| Off-duty LAPD or sheriff | $95/hr to $145/hr | High-foreseeability commercial |
What if the property had cameras but they were not working?
This is one of the strongest fact patterns. Installing a security system creates an expectation of operation. A non-functioning camera is worse than no camera because it provides false security. Under California’s voluntary undertaking doctrine (Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, applied in security cases), the property owner assumes a duty to maintain the security measure once installed. Documentation of non-operation through maintenance records, IT logs, and prior tenant complaints frequently resolves liability before trial.
What damages are available in a negligent security case?
California assault victims recover the same damages categories available in any catastrophic injury case: medical expenses (past and future), lost earnings and lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and in death cases, wrongful death damages under CCP § 377.60. Punitive damages are available against the property owner when the owner’s conduct rises to malice, oppression, or fraud under Civ. Code § 3294, which in negligent security cases typically requires conscious disregard of known danger.
Does the underlying criminal assailant have to be sued?
No. The civil claim against the property owner stands independent of any claim against the actual assailant. Most assailants are judgment-proof. The property owner’s commercial general liability policy (typically $1M to $25M per occurrence) is the realistic source of recovery. We do not waste resources pursuing the assailant unless the case involves a celebrity or high-net-worth defendant with collectible assets.
What is the deadline to file a negligent security claim in California?
Two years from the date of the assault under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. If the property is owned or operated by a public entity (a city housing authority, a college dormitory, a public hospital, a transit station), a written government tort claim must be filed within six months under Government Code § 911.2. In our experience handling Los Angeles cases, the six-month bar is missed roughly 30% of the time on government-related properties. The result is generally fatal to the claim.
What about minors and tolling?
CCP § 352(a) tolls the two-year deadline for minors until the eighteenth birthday. The clock then runs the standard two years. The government tort claim deadline is not tolled by minority status, however, so a sexual assault of a minor on government property still requires a six-month claim. We file claims early in every minor case regardless of tolling because evidence preservation is the second issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue my apartment building if I was assaulted in the parking garage?
Yes, if the assault was foreseeable and reasonable security measures would have prevented it. Apartment parking garages are the single highest-frequency location for negligent security litigation in Los Angeles County. We review the building’s prior incident history, the security infrastructure (lighting, cameras, access control), and the property management’s response to prior tenant complaints. If a pattern of break-ins or assaults existed and the owner did nothing, the case is generally strong.
What if I was a trespasser when assaulted?
The legal duty owed to trespassers is narrower than the duty owed to invitees, but California abandoned the rigid trespasser/licensee/invitee distinction in Rowland v. Christian. The relevant question is foreseeability and reasonableness, not your legal status. Trespasser cases are harder but not automatically lost.
How much is a negligent security case worth?
Case value depends on injury severity and available insurance. A non-fatal assault with documented PTSD, lost work time, and out-of-pocket medical commonly resolves between $250,000 and $1.5M against a typical commercial premises policy. Catastrophic assault cases with TBI, paralysis, or wrongful death frequently reach $3M to $15M+. Damages cap on the insurance side, not the legal side.
Will my case settle or go to trial?
Most negligent security cases in Los Angeles County settle before trial because carriers do not want a jury to see prior incident logs. Cases settle highest when liability evidence is overwhelming and damages are well-documented. We prepare every case for trial; the trial threat is what produces fair settlement value.
Does it matter if I knew the area was dangerous?
It can affect comparative fault, but California is a pure comparative negligence state. Even if you are 30% at fault for choosing to be there, you still recover 70% of damages. The defense routinely tries to shift fault to the victim. We counter with the principle that the property owner profits from inviting people onto the premises and accepts the duty of reasonable security as part of that economic relationship.
Talk to a Los Angeles negligent security attorney
Negligent security cases are evidence-driven. Prior incident logs disappear. Surveillance video overwrites. Security staff turnover destroys testimony. The most important step after an assault is to preserve evidence within days, not weeks.
Borna Houman Law represents Los Angeles assault, robbery, and shooting victims in negligent security claims against apartment owners, hotels, retail centers, and parking operators throughout LA County. We work on contingency. We advance preservation and expert costs. Call (888) 42-BORNA for a free consultation.
For related premises issues, see our guide to Los Angeles premises liability and slip and fall claims, our primer on building catastrophic injury damages, and our wrongful death lawyer guide if a family member was killed.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Borna Houman Law. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Consult an attorney about your specific situation.