Written and reviewed by Josh Kohanim, Esq., California Bar No. 328609 · Reviewed
In this guide
These claims arise at apartment complexes, parking structures, hotels, bars and stores in Los Angeles County, and they belong to the person attacked or to the family of a person killed. A claim against the attacker is separate and usually uncollectible. An injury caused by a property condition rather than a crime follows the rules on our Los Angeles premises liability lawyer page.
What negligent security means
Negligent security is a premises liability claim in which the harm was inflicted by a third party and the theory is that the owner's failure to take reasonable protective measures allowed it. Nobody has to prove the owner wanted the attack to happen or knew the attacker. CACI No. 1005, the jury instruction for these cases, asks whether the owner used reasonable care to protect against criminal conduct it could reasonably anticipate, and whether the failure to do so was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
One structural point matters. In this area of California law, foreseeability is treated as a question of law for the court when the issue is whether a duty exists at all. A judge, reading sworn declarations and records, can end the case before a jury ever hears it. The proof described here is aimed at that ruling.
Whether the owner owed you security
Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205 sets out the sequence courts follow. First, identify the specific measure the plaintiff says should have been taken. Second, analyze how financially and socially burdensome that measure would have been. Third, identify the third party conduct the measure would have prevented and assess how foreseeable it was, on a continuum from a mere possibility to a reasonable probability. The court then compares the two.
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.Castaneda v. Olsher (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1205
The measure you name decides how much proof you need. A working gate latch is inexpensive, so a moderate showing of risk can support it. A manned guard post is a heavy, recurring cost, and Castaneda requires heightened foreseeability for it: prior similar incidents on the premises, or other sufficiently serious indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults.
| Measure | Burden on the owner | Proof of risk usually needed |
|---|---|---|
| Repair a broken gate or lock | Low, a one-time repair | Notice that it was broken and unrepaired |
| Replace burned-out lighting | Low, routine maintenance | Complaints or work orders showing it was dark |
| Restore or retain camera coverage | Moderate, equipment and storage | A pattern of incidents in the same area |
| Hire and post security guards | High, continuing payroll | Prior similar violent crimes on the premises |
What counts as a prior similar incident
Prior similar incidents are earlier crimes of the same general character at the property. They do not have to be identical, and they do not have to have injured anyone. Castaneda cites Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666 for a rule that matters in dense parts of Los Angeles: criminal incidents at an immediately proximate, substantially similar business establishment can help show the required foreseeability. Incidents at the bar next door can count.
These records carry a negligent security case, and each one is held by someone with no reason to keep it long:
- Police calls for service, meaning logged 911 and dispatch calls, and crime reports tied to the street address, not only the block.
- Incident reports the property or its management company generated and never produced.
- Tenant complaint logs, emails, and maintenance work orders for gates, locks, and lighting.
- The security contract itself: post orders (the written instructions for each guard post), patrol logs, timesheets, and who was on shift.
- Camera locations, retention settings, and the footage before the system overwrites it.
- Prior lawsuits and claims against the same owner or the same management company.
Where these attacks usually happen
Apartment complexes
The pattern is familiar: a perimeter gate that has been propped, broken, or unlatched for months, cameras installed as a deterrent and never maintained, and a manager who has been told. Tenants complain in writing more often than they realize, and those complaints are the notice evidence, the proof the owner knew. A landlord's duty framework is set out in CACI No. 1006.
Parking structures and lots
Garages concentrate the risk: enclosed, poorly lit, with predictable pedestrian routes and long sightlines for anyone waiting. The questions are who operates the structure, whether access control existed and worked, what the lighting survey shows, and whether a guard or attendant was assigned to a post that sat empty.
Bars, nightclubs, and restaurants
Here the issue is usually staffing and response rather than hardware. What did the security staff do when the argument started, was anyone ejected into a dark lot, was capacity exceeded, and did the venue call police. Incidents at the same venue in prior months are ordinarily the strongest evidence available.
Who you can sue
Rarely only one. The building owner, the management company that runs it day to day, the tenant business that controls its own space, and the security contractor under a written scope of work can all be in the same case. Control rather than title is what creates the duty. The security contract is usually the most useful document in the file: it says what was promised, at what hours, and by whom.
When the property is public
An assault at a transit station, a public housing complex, a college campus, or a city garage is governed by a different statute and a much shorter clock. A written claim must be presented within six months under Government Code section 911.2, and liability runs through the dangerous condition rules rather than ordinary negligence. Our guide to suing a city, county, or Metro covers the sequence in full.
When a negligent security claim fails
- A clean property history. No prior crimes at or near the address, no complaints, no police calls. Without that record, courts will not impose a costly security duty.
- The measure would not have stopped it. Causation is separate from duty. If the attacker was a resident with a key, a working gate proves nothing.
- An unforeseeable, unprecedented act. Castaneda declined to require landlords to screen for gang membership absent extraordinary foreseeability, and courts weigh the social cost of a proposed duty.
- The crime happened off the property. Duty follows control. An attack down the street is usually outside it.
- The delay. Two years is the outside limit for a private defendant, six months for a claim against a public entity, and camera footage disappears in days.
What to do if this happened
- Get treated and keep every record, including the psychological care, which is part of the injury and often the longest part.
- Report the crime to police and get the report number. The criminal case and your claim are separate, and one does not wait for the other.
- Write down what the property looked like that night: the gate, the lights, the cameras, whether anyone was posted.
- Photograph the location before anything is repaired, because owners fix things quickly after an incident.
- Ask us to send preservation letters, written demands to keep footage and records, the same week, before footage and guard records are purged.
The one deadline you control is how quickly the property is asked to preserve what it has. If you were also hurt by the condition of the property rather than by a person, start with our guide to what a premises liability case is worth. If the injury was a head injury, the proof problems are different and our Los Angeles brain injury attorney page addresses them.