Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Published · Reviewed
Quick questions
Negligent security in California
Negligent security is a claim that a property owner, landlord or business did not take reasonable steps against a crime it could anticipate, and someone was hurt. It is part of premises liability, the law of injuries caused by the way property is run. California's jury instruction on crime on property, CACI No. 1005 (2026 edition), says that a landlord or the owner of a business open to the public "must use reasonable care to protect" tenants, guests or patrons "from another person's criminal conduct on" the property "if the [owner/landlord] can reasonably anticipate that conduct." Whether that duty exists is decided by the judge; whether the steps the owner took were "adequate and reasonable under the circumstances" is decided by the jury.
The sliding scale
The more foreseeable a crime is, the more an owner may have to do to prevent it. The California Supreme Court adopted that sliding scale in Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205: "The more certain the likelihood of harm, the higher the burden a court will impose on a landlord to prevent it." At the low end, Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269 found a duty to replace a missing glass pane in an apartment door, a repair that would have cost about $15 to finish, on notice of "a slight likelihood that an intruder might seek to enter." At the high end, hiring guards takes "a high degree of foreseeability," which "rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises" (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666).
Sources of California's rule
California's negligent security rule comes from California law: a general statute, court decisions and the jury instruction that states them. Civil Code section 1714(a) makes everyone responsible for an injury caused by "want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person." The California Supreme Court has held that a landlord "generally owes a tenant the duty, arising out of their special relationship, to take reasonable measures to secure areas under the landlord's control against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties" (Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, as quoted in CACI No. 1005). CACI No. 1005 states the rule for juries. California's lock statute for rentals, Civil Code section 1941.3, says a violation "shall not broaden, limit, or otherwise affect the duty of care owed by a landlord."
Settings and key cases
Negligent security claims arise in apartments, hotels, bars, parking garages, stores and anywhere else an owner or business controls the space. The rule in CACI No. 1005 is the same in every setting. The cases that shaped it, and the evidence that makes a claim strong, differ by setting. The table pairs each setting with its key California case and the facts that matter most.
| Setting | Key case | What makes a case strong |
|---|---|---|
| Apartments | Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269 | A written request to fix a broken door, lock, gate or light; some notice of intrusion or crime in the building; and proof that the attacker came in through that defect |
| Attack by another tenant | Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205; Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412 | Repeated written reports to the landlord or manager about that tenant's threats or violence toward neighbors, and no meaningful response |
| Hotels and motels | O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, noting that "an innkeeper was under a duty to protect his guests" | Prior similar crimes at that hotel, broken room locks or door hardware, staff who were told of a threat to a guest, or a known dangerous guest allowed to stay |
| Bars and clubs | Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224 | Staff who saw a fight building and did not take "reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome" steps, a patron ejected into a waiting group, or prior fights at the same venue |
| Parking garages and lots | Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181 | Prior assaults or robberies in the same structure, known dead cameras or lights where the attack happened, and proof that the attacker used the dark area or the open gate |
| Stores and shopping centers | Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666; Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260 | Prior violent crime in the property's own common areas, or employees who watched an attack under way and did not call 911 |
| Security companies | CACI No. 450C, the negligent undertaking instruction | A security company's post orders not followed: a post left empty, an instruction to keep a named person out ignored, or patrols that were never made |
Each setting has its own guide: apartment and condo assaults, an attack by another tenant, hotel and motel assaults, bar, nightclub and event venue assaults, parking garage and parking lot attacks, store, mall and gas station attacks, and security guard and security company liability.
The strongest cases
The strongest cases usually involve written reports to the landlord or manager about threats or violence by a specific person, and no meaningful response. Complaints about noise or suspected drug activity, without threats or violence, are weaker evidence that violence was foreseeable. In Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, the California Supreme Court held that a tenant's "behavior and known criminal associations may, in some circumstances, create such a high level of foreseeable danger to others that the landlord is obliged to take measures to remove the tenant from the premises," where violence was "highly foreseeable." In Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412, a tenant made "at least six requests to the building managers for help" about a neighbor's assaults, and the Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the landlords.
Weaker cases
Some fact patterns rarely support a negligent security claim under California law. A first violent crime at a property, with only neighborhood crime as a warning, seldom requires guards: under Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, the foreseeability needed for guards "rarely, if ever" exists without prior similar incidents on the premises. A claim can fail on causation when the attacker is unknown and could have been a resident with a key. In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, the injured person had to show, "by nonspeculative evidence, some actual causal link" between the injury and the missing security, and could not. A claim against a bar for serving the attacker alcohol runs into Civil Code section 1714(b), which treats drinking, not serving, as the cause of injuries from intoxication.
Responsible companies and insurance
When someone is attacked on property in California, the people who may be responsible include the property owner, the property management company, the security company and any business that controlled the area. Each may have its own liability insurance. California requires every licensed private patrol operator to keep commercial general liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 for any one loss or occurrence (Business and Professions Code section 7583.40). Whether a policy pays for a particular attack depends on its terms, so the policies must be obtained and read.
Assault and battery exclusions
Some liability policies exclude claims based on an assault or battery, and some limit them to a smaller amount. A California Court of Appeal held that such an exclusion applied "no matter who commits" the assault and whatever legal theory the injured person uses (Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121). Identifying every policy, including policies held by a security company or a management company, is part of the early work in these cases. The insurance and who pays guide covers each layer of coverage.
The attacker's share of fault
In California, a jury can assign part of the fault to the attacker. Each defendant pays only its own share of noneconomic damages, such as pain and emotional distress (Civil Code section 1431.2), and a Court of Appeal has applied that rule to a bar whose patron was assaulted by a third person (Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1). Economic damages, such as medical bills and lost earnings, are not divided this way. In Weidenfeller, the jury placed 75 percent of the fault on the assailant, 20 percent on the bar and 5 percent on the injured patron. The bar owed $50,000 of the $250,000 in noneconomic damages and 95 percent of the economic damages. The guide to when the attacker is mostly at fault explains how those percentages are argued.
Filing deadlines
Most California injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of the injury (Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1). Some claims have more time. For a sexual assault that happened when the survivor was 18 or older, the lawsuit period is the later of 10 years from the last act or three years from when the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury (section 340.16). A child's own injury claim against a private owner generally does not run while the child is under 18 (section 352). The dates in any one case should be calculated by a lawyer. If a public entity owns or controls the property, a written claim must be presented to it within six months after the claim accrues (Government Code section 911.2), and the second sexual assault revival window, in section 340.16(e), expressly does not reach it.
Revival windows for older claims
Two windows in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 revive some adult sexual assault claims that had been barred only because the time limit ran out. Under section 340.16(b)(3), revived claims based on an assault on or after January 1, 2009 "may be commenced until December 31, 2026," as of November 11, 2026, the date this page was checked. A second window, in section 340.16(e), runs from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027. It covers claims against an entity that "engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault" by the same perpetrator, and claims against the perpetrator. Whether a particular claim qualifies is a question for a lawyer. The guide to sexual assault on someone else's property explains both windows, and the deadline calculator counts the two-year date, not these periods.
First steps and records
If you are in danger now, call 911. After an attack on someone else's property, the first job is keeping the evidence of what the owner knew and what failed. Keep your own texts, emails and portal messages to the landlord or manager, with the dates showing, and the police report number. Photos of a broken lock, gate or light, taken before it is repaired, show its condition at the time. Wise Law does not ask clients to contact the attacker, other tenants or management to collect evidence; the firm makes those requests in writing. The negligent security evidence checklist lists, county by county, the records to request and who holds each one.
Preservation letters
Wise Law aims to send written preservation requests within 72 hours of being hired, to every company that may hold video, access logs, guard reports, work orders and complaint files. No California statute the firm has found requires a private owner to keep camera footage for a set time, so footage lasts only as long as the owner's system is set to keep it. Public recordings expire too. City and county departments may destroy telephone and radio recordings, such as 911 audio, "after 100 days" (Government Code section 34090.6; section 26202.6). State guidance says police body camera video with no evidentiary value "should be retained for a minimum of 60 days, after which it may be erased" (Penal Code section 832.18).
Police records for victims
The victim of a crime can get more of the police file than the public can. Under Government Code section 7923.605, a police agency must give the victims of listed crimes, or their authorized representative, the names of the people involved, the statements of the parties and witnesses, and the diagrams, unless that would endanger a witness or the investigation. Victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking can get one free copy of the report, related photographs and "a copy of 911 recordings, if any" (Family Code section 6228). Agencies must also make public "the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance" they receive, subject to safety exceptions (Government Code section 7923.615).
After you call
Contacting Wise Law starts nothing you do not choose. The short form on this page asks for any name you want to use, a phone number or an email, and a safe time to call. You do not have to write down what happened. A lawyer calls at the time you pick, and Spanish-speaking staff answer the phone at (424) 235-7879. Nothing is filed and no one is contacted until you decide, and you can stop at any point. Talking with us does not create an attorney-client relationship; that begins only when a written fee agreement is signed.
Fees and costs
Wise Law handles negligent security cases on a contingency fee, so the fee is a percentage of the recovery set in the written fee agreement. No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs. Case costs, such as records and filing fees, are advanced by the firm, and the agreement explains each term before representation begins. An attorney handles the case from the first call through trial, and that attorney is Josh Kohanim.
Guides by situation
Each guide answers one question in full. Start with the one closest to what happened.
- Where it happened. Attacked by another tenant, apartment and condo assaults, hotel and motel assaults, bar, nightclub and event venue assaults, parking garage and parking lot attacks, and store, mall and gas station attacks.
- Who had the duty. What a landlord must do about crime, and security guard and security company liability.
- Sexual assault. Sexual assault on someone else's property, with the filing periods and both revival windows.
- Proof, money and time. How to prove a negligent security case, deadlines, when the attacker is mostly at fault, insurance and who pays, and the criminal case, CalVCB and your civil claim.
- A death. Fatal attacks and wrongful death, for families, and the firm's wrongful death practice.
- The law in one place. California negligent security cases, one paragraph per holding, and a glossary of the terms.
- Where you live. In Los Angeles County: Beverly Hills, Woodland Hills, Long Beach and Pasadena. In Orange County: Santa Ana, Anaheim, Irvine and the county page. In Ventura County: Thousand Oaks. Each covers the local police report, tenant rules and courthouse.
Sources cited
- Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, 2026 edition, CACI Nos. 1005 and 450C: courts.ca.gov
- Civil Code sections 1714, 1941.3, 1431.2 and 1953, on california.public.law
- Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1, 340.16 and 352, on california.public.law
- Government Code sections 911.2, 34090.6, 26202.6, 7923.605 and 7923.615, on california.public.law
- Business and Professions Code section 7583.40, Penal Code section 832.18 and Family Code section 6228, on california.public.law
- California Supreme Court, on CourtListener: Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993), Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999), Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001), Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005), Morris v. De La Torre (2005) and Castaneda v. Olsher (2007)
- California Courts of Appeal, on CourtListener: O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977), Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991), Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996), Madhani v. Cooper (2003) and Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004)
- California Victim Compensation Board, what is covered and responsibility for repayment: victims.ca.gov and victims.ca.gov