When you are assaulted, robbed, or otherwise harmed by a criminal act on someone else’s property in Los Angeles, the person who attacked you may not be the only party responsible. Under California premises liability law, a property owner who fails to provide reasonable security against foreseeable crime can be held liable for the injuries that result. If you were hurt because of inadequate security, a negligent security lawyer at Callahan & Blaine, PC can help you understand your rights and pursue compensation. You can review our full range of injury services on our Los Angeles personal injury page.
Callahan & Blaine, PC has represented injured Californians since 1984, and our practice is led by trial attorney Edward Susolik, recognized among the Top 100 Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers. With more than 32 attorneys and a background in insurance and bad faith litigation, our team is prepared to hold property owners and their insurers accountable when a preventable crime causes serious harm.
What Is a Negligent Security Claim
Negligent security is a form of premises liability. Under California Civil Code section 1714, a property owner owes a duty of reasonable care to people who are lawfully on the property, and that duty includes taking reasonable measures to protect against foreseeable criminal acts. When an owner knows, or should know, of a risk of crime and fails to respond with adequate security, the owner can share legal responsibility for a resulting attack. These claims arise in a wide range of settings, from poorly lit parking structures to apartment complexes with broken gates to businesses that serve alcohol late at night. The central question is almost always foreseeability, meaning whether a reasonable owner in that position would have anticipated the risk and guarded against it.
How California Courts Decide Foreseeability
The controlling California case is Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, decided by the California Supreme Court in 1993. Ann M. established that a property owner’s duty to take affirmative steps against the criminal acts of third parties is limited to situations where the risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability works on a sliding scale, so as the known risk of crime rises, the owner’s duty to respond rises with it. A property in an area with documented prior robberies carries a higher security obligation than one in a setting with no history of crime. Courts commonly look at the following to decide whether a crime was foreseeable:
A documented history of assaults, robberies, or similar crimes at the same location is strong evidence that further crime was foreseeable.
Police records and incidents at neighboring properties can establish foreseeability even when the property itself has a limited record.
A broken gate, a non-functioning camera, or a burned-out light that the owner was told about and failed to fix is a documented failure to address a known risk.
Bars, nightclubs, cash-handling businesses, and similar sites carry an elevated crime risk that raises the duty of care.
Property owners often argue that the criminal’s act was an independent, unforeseeable event that breaks the chain of responsibility, a defense known as superseding cause. California courts have rejected that argument when the crime was the very risk that made the owner’s security failure negligent. In Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd., decided in 1999, the California Supreme Court explained that a criminal act is not a superseding cause when it is the realization of the foreseeable risk the owner should have guarded against. Under California’s pure comparative fault rules, both the owner’s negligence and the criminal’s act can be causes of the same harm.
Common Incidents Behind Negligent Security Claims
Negligent security claims can follow many kinds of criminal acts when inadequate security allowed a foreseeable crime to occur. Common examples include the following:
- Assaults and batteries, often at nightclubs, bars, parking lots, and apartment complexes.
- Robberies and thefts, particularly at retail stores, hotels, and residential buildings without secure entry or surveillance.
- Sexual assaults, frequently linked to insufficient lighting or the absence of security personnel.
- Shootings and stabbings, at shopping centers, event venues, and other sites where a known risk went unaddressed.
- Kidnappings, abductions, and property crimes, where a lack of surveillance or controlled access contributed to the harm.
What You Must Prove in a Negligent Security Case
To recover in a negligent security claim in California, an injured person generally must establish several connected elements. First, that the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property and therefore owed a duty of care. Second, that the defendant breached that duty by failing to provide adequate security, such as working locks and gates, sufficient lighting, functional cameras, or trained personnel. Third, that the criminal act was foreseeable under the Ann M. framework. Fourth, that the inadequate security was a substantial factor in causing the harm. And fifth, that the victim suffered actual damages. Building this proof depends on evidence such as prior incident reports, police call logs, property management records, tenant complaints, and maintenance histories, which is why prompt investigation matters.
Common Injuries and Their Long-Term Effects
A criminal attack can cause severe physical harm, including gunshot and stab wounds, traumatic brain injuries, broken bones, and other lasting conditions. Just as significant is the psychological toll, which can include lasting anxiety, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress. When an attack causes catastrophic or permanent harm, our catastrophic injury attorneys account for future medical and psychological care and lost earning capacity, and when an attack is fatal, surviving family members may bring a wrongful death claim.
Meet Edward Susolik, Los Angeles Negligent Security Attorney
Edward Susolik
Chief Executive Officer, President, and Senior Trial Attorney, Callahan & Blaine, PC
Edward Susolik leads the trial practice at Callahan & Blaine, PC and has spent his career representing injured people and policyholders against insurers and corporate defendants. He has been recognized among the Top 100 Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers for many consecutive years, and his background in insurance and bad faith litigation helps our Los Angeles negligent security clients hold property owners and their insurers accountable.
Working alongside a firm of more than 32 attorneys, Mr. Susolik and the Callahan & Blaine, PC team prepare each negligent security matter for trial from the start, which gives clients a stronger position in negotiation and a firm ready for the courtroom when an insurer will not offer a fair result.
Damages Available in a Negligent Security Case
California law allows negligent security victims to recover both economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages cover measurable losses such as past and future medical and psychological treatment, lost income, and reduced earning capacity. Non-economic damages address pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the lasting effect of the trauma on the victim’s life. Where a property owner’s conduct was especially reckless, punitive damages may also be available. Because the psychological harm from a criminal attack can be as serious as the physical injury, a full claim accounts for both.
How Callahan & Blaine, PC Approaches Your Negligent Security Case
Acting quickly matters, both to preserve evidence such as surveillance footage and incident records before it is lost and to meet California’s two-year statute of limitations for injury claims. Our team explains how fees work during your first meeting so you can make an informed decision before you decide to move forward.
1Investigation. We move quickly to obtain surveillance footage, police call logs, prior incident reports, and property records that establish what the owner knew and when.
2Establishing Foreseeability. We document the prior crime and known security deficiencies that made the attack foreseeable under the Ann M. standard.
3Negotiation. We document your injuries and losses and negotiate with the owner’s insurer for a settlement that reflects your full physical and psychological recovery.
4Trial. If the insurer will not offer a fair result, our trial-ready preparation means we are prepared to present your case to a jury.
Frequently Asked Questions About Los Angeles Negligent Security Claims
Can I sue a property owner for a crime committed by someone else?
Yes, in the right circumstances. California premises liability law allows an injured person to hold a property owner responsible when the owner failed to provide reasonable security against a foreseeable criminal act. The criminal who committed the attack and the property owner who failed to guard against it can both be legally responsible for the same harm.
How does California decide whether a crime was foreseeable?
Under Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, foreseeability is judged on a sliding scale that rises with the known risk of crime. Courts look at prior similar incidents on the property, crime in the surrounding area, known security deficiencies the owner failed to fix, and the nature of the property. The more foreseeable the risk, the more the owner was required to do.
What kinds of security failures support a claim?
Common failures include inadequate or broken lighting, non-functioning or absent surveillance cameras, broken gates or door locks, and the absence of trained security personnel where the risk called for it. Evidence that the owner was told about a problem and did not fix it is especially powerful.
How long do I have to file a negligent security claim in California?
In most cases you have two years from the date of the incident to file a personal injury lawsuit, under California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. A claim involving a government entity generally requires a written claim within six months. Because surveillance footage and other evidence can be lost quickly, it helps to act promptly.
What compensation can I recover in a negligent security case?
You may recover economic damages such as medical and psychological treatment, lost income, and reduced earning capacity, along with non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Where the owner’s conduct was especially reckless, punitive damages may also be available.
Contact the Los Angeles Negligent Security Attorneys at Callahan & Blaine, PC
Callahan & Blaine, PC has represented injured Californians since 1984, and our practice is led by trial attorney Edward Susolik, recognized among the Top 100 Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers. With more than 32 attorneys and deep experience in insurance and bad faith litigation, our Los Angeles team is prepared to stand up to property owners and their insurers and to recover the full compensation our clients are owed.
Evidence in a negligent security case can disappear quickly and California law limits the time you have to act, so do not wait to protect your claim. Contact Us to Submit Your Potential Case, and a member of our team will review what happened and explain the options available to you.
