Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Published · Reviewed
In this guide
This page was checked against the statutes and cases it cites on November 11, 2026. It covers residential landlords in California. When the danger is a specific neighbor, our guide to being attacked by another tenant covers notice, eviction and lock changes after a threat. Our negligent security page covers other settings, and our premises liability page covers unsafe property conditions.
The landlord's duty of care
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.
A landlord does not guarantee safety. In Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205, the California Supreme Court adopted a sliding scale: "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."
Locks the law requires
California requires residential landlords to install and keep working three kinds of locks (Civil Code section 1941.3(a)). The rule has applied since July 1, 1998, to buildings intended for human habitation. It does not apply to buildings designated as historically significant. Each row below is one device, what the statute requires, and the exceptions the statute itself lists.
| Device | What the statute requires | Exceptions in the statute |
|---|---|---|
| Dead bolt on each unit's main entry door | An operable dead bolt on each main swinging entry door, with a bolt that extends at least 13/16 of an inch beyond the strike edge when locked | Horizontal sliding doors. Existing dead bolts of at least one half inch qualify, and some existing thumb-turn locks qualify until they need repair or replacement |
| Window locks in the unit | Operable window security or locking devices for windows that are designed to be opened | Louvered and casement windows, and windows more than 12 feet up or six feet out from the ground, a roof or another platform |
| Locks on common entry doors | Locking mechanisms that meet fire and safety codes on exterior doors that lead into common areas with access to units in multifamily buildings | A landlord does not have to add a door or gate where none existed on January 1, 1998 |
Reporting a broken lock
Under Civil Code section 1941.3(b), a tenant must tell the owner or its agent when the tenant learns that a dead bolt or window lock in the unit does not work. The landlord is not liable for violating the lock rules "unless he or she fails to correct the violation within a reasonable time after he or she either has actual notice of a deficiency or receives notice of a deficiency." A written, dated repair request is the simplest proof of that notice. The tenant's remedies for a violation include a breach of contract action and an injunction, and in an eviction case for unpaid rent the violation can be raised as a defense (section 1941.3(c)).
A broken lock and liability
A broken lock does not make a landlord automatically liable for a crime. Civil Code section 1941.3(d) says a violation "shall not broaden, limit, or otherwise affect the duty of care owed by a landlord pursuant to existing law." A known, unrepaired lock is strong evidence that the landlord fell short, but the injured tenant must still show it mattered. In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, the California Supreme Court required "nonspeculative evidence" of "some actual causal link" between the missing security and the injury. That claim failed because the unidentified attackers could have been residents allowed through the gates. Proof that the attacker came through the broken door connects the two.
Common areas under the landlord's control
A landlord's duty centers on the places it controls, such as lobbies, hallways, stairs, gates and garages. The California Supreme Court has said "a landlord owes a duty of care to its tenants to take reasonable steps to secure the common areas under its control" (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 675, as quoted in CACI No. 1006). In Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324, a tenant was attacked 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 let her case go forward and said "a properly functioning front door lock is a vital first line of defense."
Lighting in common areas
Civil Code section 1941.3 lists locks, not lights, so a lighting claim rests on the general duty of reasonable care. In Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490, a condominium owner stated a negligence claim against her association, which, she alleged, had failed to respond to her requests for more lighting and ordered her to remove lights she had installed. Lighting claims still need proof that the darkness mattered. In Castaneda v. Olsher, the shooter could be seen and recognized, so the plaintiff "simply has not shown that the absence of brighter lights was likely a substantial factor." Our guide to apartment and condo assaults covers homeowners associations.
Security cameras
Civil Code section 1941.3 does not list cameras among the devices a landlord must provide. A camera can still be a reasonable step when a landlord knows where trouble keeps happening. In Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412, after repeated reports about a neighbor's assaults, the Court of Appeal said a jury "could find installing a security camera focused on the staircase where most of" the neighbor's "aggression took place might have inhibited" her. Camera footage is also evidence. How long video is kept depends on each system's settings, so a written request to save footage should go out the same day as an incident.
Promises about security
A landlord that oversells its security can be liable for the gap. In O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, owners who knew a man had raped several tenants told a prospective tenant the complex was safe and patrolled by professional guards. She rented and was raped by the same man. The Court of Appeal held she could sue for negligence and deceit, based on the owners' "position of superior knowledge and upon their alleged misrepresentations." Keep any ad, brochure, lease term or email that describes gates, guards, cameras or patrols.
Security guards
California landlords rarely have to hire guards. In Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, the California Supreme Court held that "a high degree of foreseeability is required in order to find that the scope of a landlord's duty of care includes the hiring of security guards," and that this foreseeability "rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises." Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) added that a plaintiff seeking a "heavily burdensome duty such as hiring security guards" must show prior similar incidents on the premises or other sufficiently serious indications of a foreseeable risk of violent assault. Where guards were hired, our guide to security guard and security company liability covers the guard company.
Cheap fixes on slight warning
A cheap repair can be owed even when the landlord had only slight warning. 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. A jealous former boyfriend came in through the opening and killed a woman inside. The materials were already bought, and the repair would have cost "approximately $15.00." 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 take "the minimally burdensome steps available." The owners argued they knew nothing about the attacker. The court answered that "a high degree of foreseeability is not required to impose the minimally burdensome measures urged here."
Measures and the warning needed
California courts weigh the cost of the step a tenant says was missing against how foreseeable the attack was. Each row below is one security measure, how the courts have described its burden, the kind of warning that has been required for it, and the case. The table is our summary of those holdings, not a prediction about any building.
| Security measure | How courts describe the burden | Warning that has been required | Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repair a known broken door, lock or pane | Minimal; a $15 pane in Vasquez | A slight likelihood that an intruder might try to enter | Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) |
| Put a camera on a known trouble spot | A feasible remedy for a jury to weigh | Repeated reports about the same place and person | Madhani v. Cooper (2003) |
| Warn a tenant reported for threats or violence | Less burdensome than eviction | Reports of that tenant's threats or violence | Madhani v. Cooper (2003) |
| Evict a dangerous tenant | Not a minimal burden | Violence by that tenant was highly foreseeable | Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) |
| Hire security guards | Rarely, if ever, a minimal burden | Prior similar violent crimes on the property, or comparable warning signs | Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993); Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) |
Lease clauses that waive safety
A lease cannot take away a tenant's right to the landlord's legal duty of care. Civil Code section 1953(a)(5) makes void "as contrary to public policy" any residential lease provision by which the tenant agrees to waive "His right to have the landlord exercise a duty of care to prevent personal injury or personal property damage where that duty is imposed by law." Section 1953(a)(2) also voids a waiver of the tenant's "right to assert a cause of action against the lessor which may arise in the future." The rule covers leases signed on or after January 1, 1976. A lease clause that limits a tenant's right to call the police or emergency help is void too (Civil Code section 1946.8).
Written requests from tenants
Put every safety request in writing, date it, and keep a copy and any reply, because it shows what the landlord was told. Requests worth making include:
- A repair request for a dead bolt or window lock in your unit that does not work, which Civil Code section 1941.3(b) asks the tenant to report.
- A repair request for a broken lobby door, gate, intercom or common entry lock, with photos and a date.
- A report of dark or broken lights in halls, stairs, garages or walkways, naming the exact spot.
- A report of threats or violence by a specific person, saying what happened, when, and who saw it.
- A lock change request with a protective order, police report or other documentation, which Civil Code sections 1941.5 and 1941.6 require a landlord to honor within 24 hours.
- A request to keep camera footage after an incident, sent the same day.
Harassment and police calls
California's Civil Rights Department gives this advice to a tenant harassed by a neighbor: "inform their landlord about the harassment in writing, ask the landlord to do something about it, and keep a copy of the request made to the landlord." A landlord may not penalize a tenant for calling the police as a crime victim (Civil Code section 1946.8(c)). Our negligent security evidence checklist lists the records to gather after an attack.
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. Our negligent security deadlines guide lists each period, and our deadline calculator helps you count the days. Our guide to how to prove a negligent security case explains the evidence a claim needs. The dates in any one case should be calculated by a lawyer.
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. 1005 and 1006 and their notes: courts.ca.gov
- Civil Code section 1941.3: california.public.law
- Civil Code section 1941.5: california.public.law
- Civil Code section 1941.6: california.public.law
- Civil Code section 1946.8: california.public.law
- Civil Code section 1953: california.public.law
- Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1: california.public.law
- Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205: CourtListener
- Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666: CourtListener
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763: CourtListener
- Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324: CourtListener
- Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490: CourtListener
- Madhani v. Cooper (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 412: CourtListener
- O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798: CourtListener
- Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269: CourtListener
- California Civil Rights Department, Tenant-on-Tenant Harassment FAQ (November 2025): calcivilrights.ca.gov
- California Victim Compensation Board, What Is Covered: victims.ca.gov
- Los Angeles County District Attorney, Bureau of Victim Services: da.lacounty.gov