What Is Negligent Security and When Does It Apply?
When a property owner knew about a real danger and did nothing, the resulting crime is not just the criminal’s fault in the eyes of the law.
By Michael Tamou · Updated August 14, 2026
Can a Property Owner Be Liable for a Crime That Happened on Their Property?
Quick answer: Potentially yes, under a negligent security theory, if the property owner knew or reasonably should have known about a foreseeable risk of crime (based on prior incidents, location, or circumstances) and failed to take reasonable security measures, they can share liability for injuries caused by a resulting crime.
On This Page
- Can a Property Owner Be Liable for a Crime That Happened on Their Property?
- The Core Idea Behind Negligent Security
- Establishing Foreseeability
- Common Settings for These Claims
- What Reasonable Security Looks Like
- Proving Causation: Would Better Security Have Prevented the Crime
- Evidence That Supports These Claims
- FAQs
The Core Idea Behind Negligent Security
Property owners who know or should know their property presents a foreseeable risk of criminal activity have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect people lawfully on the property, adequate lighting, functioning locks, security personnel where warranted. This does not make property owners insurers against all crime, it holds them responsible for reasonably addressing risks they knew about or should have known about.
The legal theory recognizes that criminal acts are foreseeable in some settings in a way they simply are not in others, a parking garage with a documented history of assaults presents a very different foreseeability picture than a property with no such history.
Awards & Recognition
Founding Partners Michael Tamou and Simon Touma’s personal injury litigation work has been independently recognized, earned, never purchased.
Establishing Foreseeability
A history of similar crimes at the same location, in the same neighborhood, or reported to property management previously, is often central to establishing that the risk was foreseeable and should have been addressed. Police call logs for the specific property, even for incidents that did not result in arrest or prosecution, can be powerful evidence of what the property owner should have known.
Foreseeability does not require an identical prior crime, a pattern of similar criminal activity, break-ins, assaults, thefts, in the same general category can be enough to establish that some type of criminal harm was reasonably predictable.
Common Settings for These Claims
Apartment complexes, parking garages, hotels, and commercial properties with a documented history of crime or known security gaps are common settings for negligent security claims. Properties in this category often have particular vulnerabilities, poor lighting, broken gates or locks, inadequate camera coverage, that make the eventual harm more foreseeable in hindsight.
What Reasonable Security Looks Like
This varies by property and risk level, but can include adequate lighting, functioning locks and gates, security cameras, and security personnel where the level of risk reasonably calls for it. The standard is not perfection, it is whether the measures actually in place were reasonable given the specific, known risk the property faced.
Proving Causation: Would Better Security Have Prevented the Crime
Beyond showing the property owner was negligent, a negligent security claim generally requires showing that reasonable security measures would likely have prevented or deterred the specific crime that occurred. This causation element is often where these cases are most closely contested, since it requires connecting a hypothetical better outcome to the actual failure.
Evidence That Supports These Claims
- Police call history and crime reports for the specific property
- Prior complaints to property management about safety concerns
- Photos or records documenting broken locks, gates, or lighting
- Industry security standards for similar properties in similar areas
Victim of a crime due to inadequate security in Arizona? Talk to our litigation team before you respond.
Call 602-932-6010Related Practice Areas
Slip and Fall LawyerWhat Is Negligent Security and When Does It Apply? FAQs
Does the criminal still bear responsibility too?
Yes, but a negligent security claim against the property owner is a separate legal theory, pursued in addition to whatever happens in any criminal case against the perpetrator.
How do I prove the property owner knew about the risk?
Prior crime reports, police call records for the property, and any documented complaints about security concerns can help establish foreseeability.
Does every crime on a property create liability for the owner?
No, foreseeability and the reasonableness of the property owner’s security measures are central to whether a claim exists.
What if the property had some security measures but they were inadequate?
The reasonableness of the measures actually in place relative to the known risk level is exactly what these cases examine.
Do I need an identical prior crime to establish foreseeability?
No, a pattern of similar criminal activity in the same general category can be enough to establish that some type of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
What is the hardest part of proving a negligent security case?
Often causation, showing that reasonable security measures would likely have actually prevented or deterred the specific crime that occurred.
Can a hotel or short-term rental be liable under this theory?
Yes, negligent security claims can apply to hotels, short-term rentals, and similar properties with a documented history of crime or known security gaps.
Key Takeaways
- Property owners can be liable for foreseeable crimes if they failed to provide reasonable security.
- A documented history of similar crime is often central to establishing foreseeability.
- This is a separate legal claim from the criminal case against the perpetrator.
- What counts as ‘reasonable security’ depends on the property and its known risk level.
Visit Us
