Proving Negligent Security in California Personal Injury Claims

• Malfunctioning or no security cameras
• No security guards or patrols
• Insufficient lighting
• Broken locks on doors and windows
• No activated or functioning alarms, especially for rear doors

Certain areas may attract more criminal attacks on guests and occupants. Consider these statistics:

• Parking garages ranked third nationally among settings for assaults, kidnappings, and killings, according to 2018 Federal Bureau of Investigation data.
• Statista reports that, in 2022, 15,745 robberies took place in and other parking areas. Another 10,751 occurred in convenience stores.

Many studies and reports tag nightclubs and bars as high-risk areas for criminal assaults. Alcohol, loud music, and large crowds in a concentrated area contribute to the potential for sexual assaults, fights, and other attacks at these venues.

Criminal attacks can seriously injure or kill their victims. Depending on the specific type of assault or battery, potential injuries include traumatic brain injuries, fractures, and bruises. Sexual assault victims face the prospect of disease and significant emotional distress manifested by post-traumatic stress, flashbacks, phobias, isolation, and suicidal thoughts. Crime victims may turn to the premises owner for compensation for these injuries. Below, we discuss what is involved in proving a negligent security claim.

Defining Negligent Security

Property owners owe lawful occupants and guests a duty to use reasonable measures to keep their premises safe. California Civil Code Section 1714(a) holds owners liable for injuries caused by the failure to use reasonable and ordinary care in the management of property.

Negligent security represents one facet of premises liability. In such a claim, the victim alleges that a landlord or owner of a business or other public place failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably anticipated crime. Landowners have a “special relationship” with customers and other lawful visitors or occupants of the property. As such, negligent security claims can overcome the general rule that a party is not liable for not anticipating or preventing criminal acts by third parties.

Proving That the Criminal Act Was Reasonably Anticipated

California law requires landowners to protect occupants from criminal acts that the landowner can reasonably anticipate. As such, the court must first determine whether the owner could have reasonably anticipated the attack in question.

Broadly speaking, courts balance foreseeability against the burden to the owner of providing the security measures. This means the plaintiff must first identify the deficient security measure, such as the absence of lighting, an alarm, or security guards. The court then examines the costs and efforts required to implement the measure and how likely the criminal act was to occur.

“Heightened Foreseeability”

California courts do not look favorably upon imposing high-burden measures unless the criminal act appears very likely or certain. This standard of “heightened foreseeability” applies when plaintiffs allege that property owners negligently failed to provide security guards or affirmatively prevent potential future crimes.

To persuade courts to declare such duties, the victim must prove prior similar incidents. For example, a victim of a sexual assault needs evidence of previous sexual assaults at the premises or other violent acts. It does not suffice in such claims to prove a history of thefts. One court rejected a claim that a daycare should have installed a stronger fence to prevent a motorist from intentionally running into a playground. Evidence that a previous driver negligently struck a fence at the daycare did not make the intentional act foreseeable.

Further, evidence concerning the type of establishment, or “high crime” nature of the vicinity does not trigger a duty to have security guards. Moreover, the property owner must have “actual knowledge” of the crime, not merely some inquiry notice.

Less Burdensome Security Measures

A lesser degree of foreseeability applies to security measures that impose minimal burdens. Plaintiffs might argue that it does not take much to install and maintain security cameras. Indeed, stores install video cameras to catch shoplifters, vandals, or those who might break into the establishment. Such property owners likely do not see video systems as much of a burden. Locks on doors and windows likely do not cost much to the property owner.

California Civil Code Section 1941.3 requires landlords to install deadbolt locks for renters. Landlords who disobey the statute could be liable for negligent security if the criminal attack was reasonably foreseeable.

Negligently Responding to an Ongoing Attack

Courts do not analyze foreseeability in claims that a property owner responded negligently to a current or imminent crime. Victims in these situations may claim that:

• Security personnel on duty did not try to remove the criminal or stop the act
• Staff did not warn patrons of the attack
• Personnel failed to safely evacuate patrons
• Staff negligently sent occupants to the area where the criminal act was occurring

Gathering Evidence for Negligent Security

Crime victims may obtain criminal reports for the establishment or its address from local law enforcement agencies. This requires a subpoena issued during a lawsuit. Plaintiffs' lawyers may use “interrogatories,” which are written questions sent during the pretrial phase, to learn the dates and identities of prior criminal incidents reported by the owner. News reports may also show that prior crimes occurred at the property in question.

As to the incident itself, plaintiffs will want the security footage. The absence of it indicates that the establishment did not have a security camera or one that was maintained properly. If it exists, the video would capture how the attack occurred and the conditions on the property at the time of it. Witnesses may also supply details of the incident and the absence or inadequacy of security measures.