California negligent security casesWhat the courts decided, in plain words.

Each quote was checked against the opinion on CourtListener or, where marked, against the Judicial Council's 2026 jury instructions (CACI). The cases are general information, not a prediction about any one case. For how a claim is built, start with our Los Angeles negligent security lawyer page; for the terms, see the negligent security glossary.

The rule the cases apply

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.

Cases at a glance

Foreseeability and security guards

Before an owner's duty includes costly measures such as guards, it usually must have had warning in the form of earlier violent crime on the same property.

Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993)

In Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, a photo store employee in a San Diego strip mall was sexually assaulted by a stranger; the center had no guards. The California Supreme Court held that the foreseeability needed to require guards "rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises," and that foreseeability, for deciding duty, is for the judge. For someone hurt on commercial property, a claim that guards were needed starts with the property's own history of violent crime.

Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999)

In Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, a woman was sexually assaulted in an underground commercial garage after robberies at the ground-floor bank, but no earlier crimes in the garage. The California Supreme Court rejected the view that such garages are "so inherently dangerous that, even in the absence of prior similar incidents, providing security guards will fall within the scope of a landowner's duty of care." For someone attacked in a parking structure, the garage's own history matters, and a lighting claim needs evidence that the attacker used the dark area, which the Court noted was missing.

Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004)

We cite the California Supreme Court's decision in Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138 only for its statement of the test, as CACI No. 1005 (2026 edition) quotes it: "[T]he decision to impose a duty of care to protect against criminal assaults requires 'balancing the foreseeability of the harm against the burden of the duty to be imposed.'" This page does not describe its facts or result. The test asks both whether the crime could be foreseen and what preventing it would have cost.

Staff response to an attack

Even without a duty to hire guards, a business whose staff see trouble coming must take simple, low-cost steps, such as calling 911.

Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005)

In Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, a bar's guard saw that a group was likely to attack a patron and told him to leave; the group followed him into the parking lot. The California Supreme Court held that because the bar "had actual notice of an impending assault," it had to take "reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to attempt to avert that danger," though it had no duty to provide guards. For someone hurt at a bar or club, what staff saw and did in the minutes before the attack can matter as much as the venue's crime history.

Morris v. De La Torre (2005)

In Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260, a patron was stabbed in an all-night restaurant's parking lot while three employees watched for seven to eight minutes, and no one called 911. The California Supreme Court held that "as a general matter a proprietor's special-relationship-based duty to its patrons or invitees includes an obligation to make such a call, or to take other similar minimal measures." The duty is not absolute, and staff need not attempt a rescue. For someone attacked while employees looked on, the timeline and whether anyone called for help are central.

Dangerous tenants and occupants

A landlord's duty to act against a tenant or occupant turns on reported violence or threats by that person, not on annoyance or suspicion.

Castaneda v. Olsher (2007)

In Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, a 17-year-old resident of an El Centro mobilehome park was shot as a bystander to a gang confrontation involving neighbors across the street. 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," but only when violence is "highly foreseeable." Complaints about a growling dog, broken car windows and whistling were not enough, and no one had reported a gun. For a tenant hurt by a neighbor, what was reported, and whether it was violence, decides the case.

Madhani v. Cooper (2003)

In Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412, a tenant who was repeatedly shoved and berated by a neighbor made "at least six requests to the building managers for help"; they promised to "take care of the situation," did nothing, and the neighbor pushed her down the stairs. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for the landlords, a case the California Supreme Court later described this way: "[i]t is difficult to imagine a case in which the foreseeability of harm could be more clear." A jury could decide whether a camera or removing the neighbor would have prevented the injuries. Madhani is a tenant assault case, not a dog bite case.

Hawkins v. Wilton (2006)

Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936 arose from a shooting by a tenant the owners had employed "as manager and night security guard," allegedly knowing of his manslaughter conviction and warned that he used methamphetamine, carried loaded firearms and had pulled a gun on another tenant. The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment, noting that "[t]he employer of a security guard may be [liable] for the guard's assaults if the employer negligently hired the guard or negligently placed him in a position to commit foreseeable harmful acts." Hawkins let the claims go forward; it did not hold the owners liable. What an owner knew before giving someone keys or authority matters.

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. Our guide on being attacked by another tenant explains what to keep.

Common areas and warnings

Cheap fixes to doors, locks and lights in shared spaces need less warning than guards, and hiding a known danger can create its own claim.

O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977)

In O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, the owners of a San Jose apartment complex knew a man had sexually assaulted several tenants, yet told a prospective tenant the premises "were safe and were patrolled at all times by professional guards"; she rented and was assaulted by the same man. The Court of Appeal allowed her negligence, deceit and punitive damages claims, resting the duty to warn "upon their position of superior knowledge and upon their alleged misrepresentations." For someone told a place was safe, what the owner knew and said can support a claim even when the attack happened inside a unit.

Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981)

In Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324, a San Francisco tenant was sexually assaulted and robbed by a nonresident in a dimly lit lobby with a defective front door lock, after an earlier attack on another tenant and tenant complaints. The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of her claim, holding that "a properly functioning front door lock is a vital first line of defense." For a tenant hurt after reporting a broken entry lock, the earlier crime need not be identical, though later Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Ann M., refined how foreseeability is weighed.

Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986)

In Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, a condominium owner sued her homeowners association and its directors after a crime in her unit, alleging they ignored requests for more lighting and made her remove lighting she had installed. The California Supreme Court held that the association "is, for all practical purposes, the Project's 'landlord'" and owes residents due care in the common areas it controls. For a condominium owner, written refusals on locks or lighting can be evidence; later statutes protect volunteer directors in some cases (Civil Code section 5800).

Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004)

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; then "a jealous boyfriend broke into the apartment of his estranged girlfriend and murdered her" through that door. The Court of Appeal held that if the owners knew of "a slight likelihood that an intruder might seek to enter," they had a duty to make the repair, which would have cost about $15, even without knowing the attacker. When a preventable intrusion ends in a death, the family's claim is a wrongful death claim.

Proof of causation

Proving the owner was careless is not enough; the injured person must also show the missing measure would likely have made a difference.

Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001)

In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, a woman was assaulted by unidentified attackers at a "300-unit, 28-building apartment complex" with broken gates. The California Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the owners because the plaintiff must show, "by nonspeculative evidence, some actual causal link" between the injury and the missing security, and the attackers "also could have been tenants of defendants' apartment complex." For someone attacked on a property, who the attacker was and how the attacker got in often decide the case, as our guide on how to prove a negligent security case explains.

Fault shared with the attacker

A jury can divide fault between a negligent owner and the attacker, and that split controls who pays for pain and emotional distress.

Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991)

In Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1, a bar patron assaulted by a third person was found 5 percent at fault, the assailant 75 percent and the bar 20 percent. The Court of Appeal held that Civil Code section 1431.2 limited the bar to $50,000 of $250,000 in noneconomic damages, calling it "inconceivable the voters intended" its share to grow "solely because the only other responsible tortfeasor acted intentionally." The bar still paid $116,375 of $122,500 in economic damages. For someone hurt by an attacker with no money, the owner's percentage of fault shapes what can be recovered.

B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020)

In B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1, the California Supreme Court held that section 1431.2(a) "does not authorize a reduction in the liability of intentional tortfeasors for noneconomic damages based on the extent to which the negligence of other actors ... contributed to the injuries in question." In a footnote it said, "We express no opinion on whether negligent tortfeasors may" reduce their share by the attacker's, leaving Weidenfeller in place. This page cites B.B. for its holding only. Our guide on when the attacker is mostly at fault explains the split.

Colleges and students

A college can owe students a duty during classes and school activities, and a public college is also covered by the government claim rules.

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018)

Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607 was a UCLA student's negligence claim against the University of California. The California Supreme Court held that "postsecondary schools do have a special relationship with students while they are engaged in activities that are part of the school's curriculum or closely related to its delivery of educational services," and sent the case back on breach and immunity. The Regents is a public entity (Government Code section 811.2). If a city, a county, the State, a school district, a transit agency or another public entity may be responsible, a written claim must first be presented to that entity within six months after the claim accrues (Government Code section 911.2). The lawsuit against the entity then has its own deadline: six months after a written rejection notice is delivered or mailed, or two years from the date the claim accrued if no written notice is given (Government Code section 945.6).

The negligent security evidence checklist lists the records these cases turn on and who holds them, and the deadline calculator gives a first look at the dates. Injuries from unsafe conditions rather than crime are covered on our premises liability page.

Sources cited

• Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026 edition), CACI No. 1005: courts.ca.gov
• California Supreme Court decisions, CourtListener: Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1138, Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, Morris v. De La Torre (2005) 36 Cal.4th 260, Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1 and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607
• Court of Appeal decisions, CourtListener: Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412, Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324, Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269 and Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1
• Civil Code, california.public.law: sections 1431.2 and 5800
• Government Code, california.public.law: sections 811.2, 911.2 and 945.6