Available now(424) 235-7879
Call now

Apartment and condo assaults in Los AngelesReported the broken gate? That report matters.

A California landlord or condominium association can be responsible for an assault on its property when it could reasonably anticipate the crime and did not take reasonable steps against it. In intruder cases the proof is usually a broken gate, door or lock, or a dark common area, that management knew about. Cheap fixes need the least warning.

Start the confidential form(424) 235-7879

Josh Kohanim, Esq.Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Published · Reviewed

In this guide

This page was checked against the statutes, the 2026 jury instructions and the cases it cites on November 11, 2026. It covers attacks by intruders and other people who did not live in the building. When the attacker was a neighbor or another occupant, our guide to being attacked by another tenant covers notice, written reports and eviction. The Los Angeles negligent security lawyer page explains the claim as a whole.

The rule for landlords

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.

For landlords, the California Supreme Court has described the duty as including "the duty to take reasonable steps to secure common areas against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are likely to occur in the absence of such precautionary measures" (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674).

Broken gates and door locks

In an intruder case, the first question is how the attacker got in. The answer is often a way in that management knew was broken: a lobby door that does not latch, a gate left open, a missing pane in a unit door. In Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324, a tenant was attacked by a nonresident in a dimly lit lobby with a defective front door lock, after an earlier attack on another tenant and complaints from tenants. The Court of Appeal let her claim go forward and wrote that "a properly functioning front door lock is a vital first line of defense." A broken entry that management knew about, and did not fix, is the core of an intruder case.

Locks the law requires

California sets minimum security hardware for rental housing. Civil Code section 1941.3 requires an operable dead bolt on each main swinging entry door of a unit, working locks on windows designed to be opened, and locking mechanisms on the exterior doors that lead to common areas with access to units in multifamily buildings. The statute does not require a door or gate where none existed on January 1, 1998, and under section 1941.3(d) a violation "shall not broaden, limit, or otherwise affect the duty of care owed by a landlord." A missing dead bolt is evidence, not automatic liability. Our guide to what a landlord must do about crime covers the statute in full.

Dark common areas

Lobbies, hallways, stairs, garages, laundry rooms and courtyards are common areas, and a landlord that controls them must take reasonable steps to secure them against crime it can anticipate. California cases describe these as parts of the premises "over which the landlord retains control, such as common hallways, stairs, elevators, or roof" (Uccello v. Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 511, as quoted in CACI No. 1006). Replacing a dead light is a low-cost step. The injured person still has to show the darkness mattered. In Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, an attack in an underground commercial garage, the record had "no evidence that her attacker actually used any of the darkened areas to facilitate his assault." Photos, work orders and complaints about the lights, and proof of where the attacker waited, do that work.

Cheap fixes and foreseeability

The cheaper the security step, the less warning the law requires before a landlord must take it. In Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269, a family had asked the manager several times to replace a missing glass pane in their front door. An intruder came through the opening and killed a woman inside. The owners had the complaints, an earlier attempted entry into that apartment and reports of assaults in other units. Finishing the repair would have cost about $15. The Court of Appeal held that if the owners knew enough to see "a slight likelihood that an intruder might seek to enter the apartment," they had a duty to take that step, because "a high degree of foreseeability is not required to impose the minimally burdensome measures urged here."

The California Supreme Court approved the Vasquez method in Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, quoting its summary: "The more certain the likelihood of harm, the higher the burden a court will impose on a landlord to prevent it; the less foreseeable the harm, the lower the burden a court will place on a landlord." The owners in Vasquez did not need to know the particular attacker. When an attack like this is fatal, the family's claim is a wrongful death claim, explained on our Los Angeles wrongful death lawyer page.

Security steps and proof needed

California courts weigh each proposed security step against how foreseeable the crime was. The table below is the firm's summary of how the cases have treated typical steps in apartment buildings, with the source for each row. Low-cost repairs need the least warning, and guards and eviction need the most.

Apartment security steps, the burden each puts on the owner, and the warning California cases look for before requiring it
Security stepBurden on the ownerWarning the cases look forSource
Repair a broken lock, gate or unit door the landlord knew aboutLow, usually a one-time repairNotice of the defect and some notice of intrusion or crime, even a slight likelihood that an intruder might try to enterVasquez (2004); Kwaitkowski (1981)
Restore lighting in a common areaLow, routine maintenanceNotice that the area was dark and some notice of crime, plus proof the darkness played a part in the attackAnn M. (1993); Sharon P. (1999)
Warn tenants of a known danger and describe security truthfullyLowKnowledge of the specific dangerO'Hara (1977)
Hire guards or run patrolsHigh, a continuing costHeightened foreseeability, usually prior similar violent incidents on the propertyAnn M. (1993); Castaneda (2007)
Act against or evict a dangerous tenantNot minimalViolence by that tenant that was highly foreseeableCastaneda (2007); Madhani (2003)

Written complaints to the manager

A dated, written complaint is clear proof of what an owner or manager knew before an attack. Emails, text messages, tenant portal messages, work orders and letters all count. Civil Code section 1941.3(b) makes notice part of the lock statute too: a landlord is not liable for a violation unless it fails to fix the problem within a reasonable time after notice. One Court of Appeal has said that foreseeability "is tested by what the defendant knows, not what the defendant could have or should have learned" (Margaret W. v. Kelley R. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 141, 158, as quoted in CACI No. 1005). Screenshot portal messages now, with the dates showing, and keep the phone.

Attacks by another resident

When the attacker lived in the building, the claim turns on what the landlord or manager knew about that person. 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. California's cases on this point include Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205 and Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412. Our guide to being attacked by another tenant covers notice, what a landlord can do up to eviction, and protective orders.

Attacks inside a unit

An attack inside a tenant's own apartment can still be the landlord's responsibility when the way in ran through something the landlord controlled or had been asked to fix. In O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp., the Court of Appeal said the fact that the attack happened inside the tenant's apartment was "not determinative," because the owners' failure to secure the common areas they controlled could have contributed. In Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc., the intruder came through the unit's own front door, by way of the pane the owners had been asked to replace. An attack by someone the tenant let in raises different questions about cause.

Condominium and HOA common areas

A condominium or homeowners association that runs the common areas owes residents a landlord's duty of care in those areas. In Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, a condominium owner alleged the association ignored requests for more lighting and "wrongfully ordered her to remove the lighting that she had installed." An intruder entered her unit on a night it was dark because she had followed the board's order. The California Supreme Court held she stated a negligence claim against both the association and its individual directors, and called the association "for all practical purposes, the Project's 'landlord.'" Board minutes, lighting and lock requests, and the association's replies are the core evidence.

HOA directors and unit owners

Two statutes limit claims against individual people in a common interest development, and both depend on insurance. Under Civil Code section 5800, a qualifying volunteer director or officer is not personally liable beyond the association's insurance for good faith acts within association duties that were not "willful, wanton, or grossly negligent," if the association carried general liability and directors and officers coverage of at least $500,000, or $1,000,000 for more than 100 separate interests. Section 5800(d) says nothing in it limits the association's own liability. Under Civil Code section 5805, a tort claim against an individual owner arising solely from shared ownership of the common area goes against the association if it carries general liability coverage of at least $2,000,000, or $3,000,000 for more than 100 separate interests. The association's policies should be requested early.

Owner and property manager

The owner of record is often a single-property company, and a separate management company may run the building, take the complaints and order the repairs. Either can be responsible, because control, not title, creates the duty: "A defendant need not own, possess and control property in order to be held liable; control alone is sufficient" (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162, as quoted in CACI No. 1000). In Castaneda and Madhani, reports made to the manager counted as notice to the landlord. General premises rules, such as control and unsafe conditions, are on our Los Angeles premises liability lawyer page.

Security companies

When a building has guards or a patrol service, the security company can be a separate defendant. California's negligent undertaking instruction, CACI No. 450C, applies to a company that "voluntarily or for a charge, rendered services" it should have recognized as needed to protect others, failed to use reasonable care in providing them, and meets one of three further conditions, such as performing a duty the owner owed to the tenants. The contract and the post orders, the written instructions for each guard post, define what the company promised. Our guide to security guard and security company liability covers absent guards and ignored instructions.

Insurance and who pays

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.

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. That is why the owner's own share of fault, built from what it knew and did not do, matters in every case.

Attacks off the property

The duty in CACI No. 1005 covers criminal conduct "on" the owner's property, so an attack on a public sidewalk, a street or a neighbor's lot is usually outside a landlord's responsibility. Control can extend it. Under CACI No. 1002, "A person controls property that the person does not own or lease when the person uses the property as if it were the person's own." A landlord that runs a lot across the street for tenant parking, for example, may be responsible there. Where the attack happened, and who controlled that spot, is one of the first facts a lawyer checks.

Proof of the way in

A known broken gate or lock is strong evidence, but the injured person must also show it more likely than not mattered. In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, the California Supreme Court required proof "by nonspeculative evidence, some actual causal link" between the injury and the missing security. The claim failed because the unidentified attackers "could have been tenants of defendants' apartment complex," who were allowed inside the gates. Video, signs of forced entry, key fob and gate logs, the police report and proof that the attacker did not live there show the route.

Records to keep

Evidence about a building can disappear quickly. Write down the police report number, photograph the gate, lock, door or light before it is repaired, and keep every earlier complaint and reply. Private camera systems keep footage only as long as the owner's settings allow, so a written request to preserve video and access logs should go out at once. Do not contact the attacker, other tenants or management to gather evidence; a lawyer can do that. Our negligent security evidence checklist lists who holds each record and how to ask for it.

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, including claims based on a sexual assault. Our guide to negligent security deadlines lists each period with its statute, and the deadline calculator gives a date to check with a lawyer. The dates in any one case should be calculated by a lawyer.

Talk to a lawyer about what happened at your building.

No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs.

Get a free case review

Sources cited

Frequently asked questions

Can I sue my apartment complex if a stranger attacked me there?
You may be able to, if the owner could reasonably anticipate that kind of crime and did not take reasonable steps against it, the duty CACI No. 1005 states for landlords. A known broken gate, door or lock, a dark common area, earlier break-ins or attacks, and written complaints are the usual proof. The injured person must also show the missing step more likely than not would have prevented the attack (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400).
Is a landlord responsible if the attacker came through a broken gate?
It can be, if the landlord knew the gate was broken and had some warning that intruders might use it. In Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc., a $15 repair the owners had been asked to make needed only "a slight likelihood that an intruder might seek to enter the apartment." The injured person must still show the attacker actually came through that gate and not some other way.
Can I sue my HOA if I was attacked in my condo complex?
A condominium or homeowners association that controls the common areas can be responsible, because it owes residents a landlord's duty of care in those areas (Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490). Civil Code sections 5800 and 5805 limit claims against volunteer directors and individual owners when the association carries the insurance those sections require, so the claim usually runs against the association and its policies.
Is my landlord responsible for an attack on the sidewalk outside my building?
Usually not, unless the landlord controlled that area. The duty in CACI No. 1005 covers criminal conduct on the owner's property, and control decides where the property ends. A landlord that uses a nearby area as its own, such as a lot it runs for tenant parking, may be responsible there. An attack that started inside the building and moved outside raises its own questions.
Does it matter that the attacker was a homeless person who got into the building?
The attacker's housing status is not the test. What matters is what the owner knew about people getting in, such as complaints about a broken door or earlier break-ins, and whether a reasonable step, like fixing the lock, would have kept the attacker out. The attacker can also be named in the lawsuit, and a jury can assign part of the fault to the attacker.
Have a question about your case?

Speak with an attorney. The review is free and you will get a direct answer.

(424) 235-7879

A confidential contact form

Any name, and one way to reach you. Nothing happens until you say so. A licensed attorney reads every message and reviews each confidential contact within one business day.

  • No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs
  • Confidential. You can stop at any point
  • Spanish-speaking staff answer the phone
Or call or text the firm directly(424) 235-7879

Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Text the same number if a call is not safe.

One is enough. Give a phone number, an email, or both.

Is it safe to call this number?
Do you already have a lawyer on this matter?
You are

The rest is optional. It helps the attorney prepare, and you can leave every line blank.

Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is formed only by a signed written fee agreement. Prefer not to type? Call or text (424) 235-7879.

Call nowText us