When you are the victim of a violent crime.
Whether an assault in a parking garage, a robbery outside an apartment building, a shooting at a poorly guarded business, the harm can feel like it belongs entirely to the criminal who attacked you. And in a criminal sense, it does. But there is often another party whose choices made the attack possible: the owner of the property where it happened. When a business or landlord fails to provide reasonable security, and a foreseeable crime results, that failure can be its own form of negligence, called negligent security.
This guide explains, in plain language, what negligent security is, when a property owner can be responsible for a crime committed by someone else, the concept of foreseeability that sits at the center of these cases, and the kinds of security failures that lead to liability. It is written for people who were seriously harmed, or who lost someone they love, in a crime that reasonable security might have prevented.
If you believe inadequate security contributed to an attack on you or a loved one, this guide pairs with our companion article on the signs you have a negligent security claim after an assault. This first article explains how these cases work. The second helps you recognize a claim.
Contact Us for a Free, Confidential Consultation
Article written by Brendan Lupetin, Esq. Brendan is a managing partner in the law firm of Lupetin & Unatin, a medical malpractice law firm located in Pittsburgh and serving Western Pennsylvania.
Our practice is limited to high-value catastrophic cases because that is where we can do the most for our clients and for patient safety.
What Negligent Security Is
Negligent security is a type of premises liability. Just as a property owner must fix a dangerous spill or a broken stair, an owner who invites people onto their property has a duty, in certain circumstances, to take reasonable measures to protect them from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. When an owner fails to provide that reasonable security, and a foreseeable crime causes injury or death, the owner can be held financially responsible, separately from, and in addition to, the criminal.
This may sound surprising at first. How can a property owner be responsible for a crime committed by someone else? The answer lies in the idea that some crimes are foreseeable, and that a reasonable owner is supposed to guard against foreseeable dangers, including foreseeable violence. A landlord who knows their building has been the site of repeated violent robberies, and does nothing, has arguably allowed the next one to happen.
The Heart of These Cases: Foreseeability
The central question in almost every negligent security case is foreseeability: was the crime that occurred reasonably foreseeable to the property owner? If it was, the owner had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it. If it truly was not, the owner generally is not liable.
Foreseeability is usually established through evidence about the property and the area, especially:
Prior crimes on the property. The strongest evidence. If similar crimes, assaults, robberies, or other violence, happened on the property before, the owner was on notice that it could happen again. Crime data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that where a crime occurs, in a commercial establishment, a parking area, or a residence, is a measurable characteristic, and a property’s own history is often the clearest signal of what a reasonable owner should anticipate.
Crime in the immediate area. A high rate of violent crime in the surrounding neighborhood can make a crime on the property foreseeable, even without a long history on the site itself.
Prior complaints or warnings. If tenants, customers, or employees had complained about broken locks, poor lighting, or safety concerns, the owner was on notice.
The nature of the business or property. Some properties, by their nature or hours, carry known risks that a reasonable owner should anticipate.
Because prior similar crimes are so central, investigating the property’s history, police call records, incident reports, and complaints, is often decisive in these cases. This evidence establishes what the owner knew, or should have known, and therefore what they were required to do.
The Security Failures That Lead to Liability
When a crime is foreseeable, the question becomes whether the owner took reasonable security measures. Negligent security cases often involve failures such as:
- Inadequate lighting, in parking lots, garages, stairwells, walkways, and entrances, where darkness enables crime.
- Broken or missing locks, on doors, gates, and windows, especially in apartment buildings and hotels.
- Broken or absent security gates, particularly where a property advertised itself as “gated” or “secure.”
- Missing or non-working security cameras.
- A lack of security guards or patrols, where the risk level called for them.
- Failure to respond to known dangers, such as ignoring repeated complaints or prior incidents.
- Overgrown landscaping or hidden areas that provide concealment for attackers.
- Failure to warn tenants or guests of a known danger.
What counts as “reasonable” security depends on the circumstances, especially the level of foreseeable risk. A property with a history of violent crime may need guards and cameras; a low-risk property may not. The question is always whether the owner’s security measures were reasonable in light of what they knew or should have known.
Where Negligent Security Cases Arise
These cases can arise anywhere a property owner invites people and owes them reasonable protection, including:
- Apartment complexes and rental housing, where landlords owe tenants reasonable security.
- Parking lots and parking garages, common sites of assaults and robberies.
- Hotels and motels, which owe guests reasonable protection.
- Bars, nightclubs, and restaurants, including cases involving inadequate security or over-service.
- Shopping centers, malls, and retail stores.
- Office and commercial buildings.
- College campuses and student housing.
The common thread is a property owner who could have reasonably foreseen the danger and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the people they invited in.
The Serious Harm These Cases Involve
Negligent security cases, by their nature, tend to involve severe, life-altering harm, including:
- Serious physical injuries from assaults, including gunshot wounds, stabbings, and beatings.
- Traumatic brain injuries.
- Permanent disability and disfigurement.
- Sexual assault and its profound, lasting harm.
- Psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder, which can be as disabling as physical injury.
- Wrongful death, when the victim does not survive.
Because these cases involve violent crime, the physical and emotional harm is often catastrophic, and the value of these cases, and the responsibility of an owner who could have prevented them, reflects that severity.
How Pennsylvania’s Fault Rules Apply
Like other premises cases, negligent security claims are subject to Pennsylvania’s modified comparative negligence rule, and property owners often try to shift blame onto the victim, or argue that the criminal alone is responsible. But the law recognizes that an owner who fails to provide reasonable security can share responsibility for a foreseeable crime. A skilled lawyer’s job includes establishing the owner’s share of fault and overcoming attempts to place all the blame elsewhere.
The Time Limit to File in Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations for these claims is generally two years from the date of the crime. Some situations, such as an incident on government-owned property, can carry shorter notice requirements. Because critical evidence, like surveillance video and the property’s condition, can disappear quickly, and because these investigations take time, it is important to act promptly. You can read more on our statutes of limitations page.
How Lupetin & Unatin Can Help
We are Lupetin & Unatin, a Pittsburgh law firm, and we are among the most accomplished premises liability trial lawyers in Pennsylvania. Our results in premises cases are, we believe, among the best in the Commonwealth, including what are believed to be the two largest slip-and-fall verdicts in Erie County history and a $2.1 million jury verdict against Target Corporation. We bring that same skill and determination to negligent security cases, holding property owners accountable when their failure to protect people leads to tragedy.
These are difficult, sensitive cases, and they require a firm willing to do the hard work: investigating the property’s crime history, obtaining police and incident records, securing surveillance video before it is erased, and working with security experts to show what reasonable protection would have looked like. We handle these cases with care for our clients, who have often survived something terrible, and with determination against the owners and insurers who resist responsibility. When they refuse to be fair, we are trial lawyers who take cases to juries.
Free Consultation — No Fee Unless We Win
We take a limited number of cases so we can give each one real attention. We work on a contingency fee, which means you pay nothing up front. You pay nothing unless we win. We advance the costs of building your case, and if we do not recover for you, you owe us nothing.
If you or someone you love was seriously harmed in a crime that reasonable security might have prevented, you deserve answers. A short conversation can tell you a lot. Call Lupetin & Unatin today for a free, no-pressure review of your case.