Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Published · Reviewed
In this guide
This page was checked against California statutes and the 2026 civil jury instructions on November 11, 2026. It is part of our guide to negligent security in Los Angeles, and the general rules for injuries on someone else's property are on our premises liability page.
Negligent undertaking
A security company that agreed to protect people can be responsible to someone hurt when it did that job carelessly. California's jury instruction CACI No. 450C (2026 edition) calls this "negligent undertaking," from the Restatement Second of Torts, section 324A. The injured person must prove four things. The company rendered services "voluntarily or for a charge." The services were "of a kind" it "should have recognized as needed for the protection of" the injured person. The company "failed to exercise reasonable care in rendering these services." That failure "was a substantial factor in causing harm." A fifth element can be met in one of three ways: the carelessness "added to the risk of harm," the services were rendered "to perform a duty that" the client "owed to third persons," or the harm happened because someone "relied on" the services.
The security contract
The security contract is the first document in a guard case, because the company's duty is measured by what it agreed to do. Post orders are the written instructions for each guard post: its hours, the patrol route, who must be kept out and when to call police. CACI No. 450C quotes Lichtman v. Siemens Industry Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 914: the theory "is typically applied where the defendant has contractually agreed to provide services for the protection of others, but has negligently done so." A guard company hired to protect tenants or customers performs a duty the owner owes them, and people may rely on posted guards. Either fact can meet the fifth element of the negligent undertaking rule.
Guards who left their post
A guard who was away from the post, asleep or busy elsewhere during the hours the contract covered was not providing the protection the company sold. The proof is often in the company's own records. Post orders show where the guard should have been, and patrol logs show what the guard wrote down. Electronic tour checkpoints or GPS data show where the guard actually went, and timesheets show who was paid for the shift. Compared with the property's video, those records can show whether a post was empty. An empty post is evidence that the company breached its duty, but the injured person must still show that a guard at that post would probably have changed what happened.
Proof that the guard mattered
A security company is responsible only if its failure was a substantial factor in causing the harm. In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, the California Supreme Court required the injured person to "establish, by nonspeculative evidence, some actual causal link between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's failure to provide adequate security measures." The Court contrasted Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc. (1994), where a security firm "hired specifically to protect the plaintiff and other employees" had "repeatedly ignored the plaintiff's directions to bar" the attacker from the premises. Advance notice of a particular person, and a guard instruction that would have stopped that person, make a strong causal link.
Guards who saw a threat
When security staff see an attack developing, the business they work for must take simple steps. In Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, a bar's guard saw a group likely to attack a patron and told the patron to leave, and the group followed him outside. The California Supreme Court held that because the bar "had actual notice of an impending assault," its duty "included an obligation to take reasonable, relatively simple, and minimally burdensome steps to attempt to avert that danger." A guard's own observations, in a report or on video, can be that notice. Our guide to bar, nightclub and event venue assaults covers bouncers.
Violence by a guard
A guard who assaults someone can be sued, and the guard's employer can be responsible for its own negligence in hiring, supervising or keeping that guard. Under CACI No. 426, the injured person must show that the employer "knew or should have known" the employee was unfit and that this "created a particular risk to others." In Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936, the Court of Appeal wrote: "The 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." California requires every registered guard to complete a course in "the exercise of the power to arrest and the appropriate use of force" (Business and Professions Code section 7583.6(a)).
Vicarious liability for guards
An employer can also be responsible for a guard's wrongful acts without any fault of its own, under the rule called vicarious liability or respondeat superior. Civil Code section 2338 makes a principal responsible for an agent's negligence "in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business." CACI No. 3720 treats conduct as within the scope of employment if it "is reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that the [employee] was employed to perform" or "is reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer's business." Whether a guard's use of force meets that test depends on the facts, and a lawyer has to evaluate it case by case.
The property owner's duty
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.
Hiring a security company does not end the owner's own duty. In Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005), the California Supreme Court said foreseeability "remains relevant" to breach and causation even where a business "voluntarily has employed one or more guards." The owner, the manager and the guard company can each be sued, and each is judged on what it knew and did.
Nondelegable duty
Whether a property owner answers for a security company's failures as if they were its own is a question for a lawyer in each case. The Directions for Use of CACI No. 1001 say that "a property owner cannot escape liability for failure to maintain property in a safe condition by delegating the duty to an independent contractor." That rule, a nondelegable duty, is written about the property's condition. Whether it reaches security work contracted to a guard company affects how fault is divided under Proposition 51 (Civil Code section 1431.2) and whose insurance pays. Our guide to proving a negligent security case covers the owner's side.
Required liability insurance
California requires a licensed private patrol operator, a company that agrees for pay to furnish guards (Business and Professions Code section 7582.1), to keep liability insurance as a condition of its license. Section 7583.40 defines the required policy as "a commercial general liability policy of insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to transact business in this state that provides minimum limits of insurance of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one loss or occurrence due to bodily injury, including death, or property damage, or both." Under section 7583.39(b), a company that fails to keep it gets 30 days' written notice, and then "the license shall be automatically suspended by operation of law."
Exclusions and additional insureds
The $1,000,000 figure is a minimum, and the policy's terms still decide whether it covers a particular attack. A guard company's policy can exclude claims based on assault or battery. A California Court of Appeal enforced that kind of exclusion when a cab company's driver beat two men (Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121). A security contract may also make the owner or manager an additional insured on the guard company's policy, which brings that policy into the claim against the owner. Our guide to insurance and who pays explains exclusions and limits.
Guard license lookup
Anyone can check whether a California security company or guard holds a current license. The Department of Consumer Affairs License Search covers the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS), with license types that include "Private Patrol Operator," "Security Guard" and "Exposed Firearm Permit." The search page says each record "will reflect if a license is current, expired, or has been subject to disciplinary action like suspension or revocation." A licensed patrol company's guard in a distinctive uniform must wear a shoulder patch that reads "private security" and names the company (Business and Professions Code section 7582.26(f)). A lawyer will want to know early about a missing or lapsed license.
Records to request
Each record below answers a different question about what a security company promised and what its guards did. Most are held by the guard company, and some by the owner, the manager or a vendor.
| Record | Who holds it | What it can show |
|---|---|---|
| Security contract and post orders | The owner or manager, and the guard company | What the company agreed to do, at which posts and hours, and each post's written instructions |
| Patrol logs and daily activity reports | The guard company | What the guard on duty recorded doing on the day of the attack and before |
| Checkpoint or GPS data | The guard company or its software vendor | Whether and when the guard reached each point on the patrol route |
| Schedules and timesheets | The guard company | Who was assigned to the post and whether anyone clocked in |
| Earlier incident reports | The guard company and the property manager | Earlier threats, fights or crimes the guards reported |
| Employee and training records | The guard company | Each guard's start date and training, which licensed patrol companies must keep (Business and Professions Code sections 7583.2 and 7583.6) |
| Use of force and firearm reports | The guard company, which sends them to BSIS | An on-duty physical altercation with a member of the public, reported within seven business days in the cases Business and Professions Code section 7583.2(f) lists, or a firearm discharge (section 7583.4) |
| Certificate of insurance and endorsements | The guard company, its insurer and the owner | The insurer and policy dates, which the insurer reports to BSIS (Business and Professions Code section 7583.39(c)), and any additional insureds |
| Video from the property | The owner, the manager or a camera vendor | Where the guard was during the attack, if the system kept the footage |
Getting the records
A security company will rarely hand its records to an injured person, and California law bars a licensee from divulging what it learns on a job to anyone but law enforcement, "except as he or she may be required by law so to do," or "at the direction of the employer or client" (Business and Professions Code section 7582.26(a)). The records come through a written preservation letter soon after the attack, then subpoenas and discovery in a lawsuit. We have not found a California statute that sets how long a guard company must keep post orders or patrol logs, so the letter should go out early. Our negligent security evidence checklist lists what to ask each holder to keep.
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 that arise from a sexual assault, and our guide to negligent security deadlines lists them by type of defendant. A claim against a private security company follows the same deadlines as a claim against a private property owner. If an attack was fatal, the family's claim follows the wrongful death rules. The deadline calculator gives a starting point, and a lawyer should confirm the dates.
No fee unless we recover. If there is no recovery, you owe no fee and no case costs.
Sources cited
- Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 2026 edition, Nos. 426, 450C, 1001, 1005 and 3720: courts.ca.gov
- Business and Professions Code sections 7582.1, 7582.26, 7583.2, 7583.4, 7583.6, 7583.39 and 7583.40: california.public.law
- Civil Code sections 1431.2 and 2338: california.public.law
- Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1 and 340.16: california.public.law
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763: CourtListener
- Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224: CourtListener
- Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 936: CourtListener
- Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 121: CourtListener
- Department of Consumer Affairs, License Search: search.dca.ca.gov
- Bureau of Security and Investigative Services: bsis.ca.gov