Negligent security laws allow victims of violent criminal attacks to pursue a civil lawsuit against property owners, security companies, and other parties for failing to implement proper security measures. When criminals attack innocent people on private property in Florida, the property owner may share legal responsibility if they failed to provide adequate security. Florida negligent security laws hold property owners, managers, and operators of apartments, shopping centers, hotels, convenience stores, and other businesses accountable when their failure to implement reasonable security measures contributes to violent crimes against visitors or tenants.
What Is Negligent Security in Florida?
Negligent security is a type of premises liability claim that arises when a property owner fails to provide reasonable security measures to protect lawful visitors from foreseeable criminal acts. These claims recognize that property owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises, which includes protecting against third-party criminal conduct when such crimes are reasonably foreseeable.
Common negligent security claim scenarios include assaults in poorly lit parking lot areas, robberies at ATMs lacking proper surveillance, attacks in apartment housing complexes with broken gates or non-functioning locks, sexual assaults in hotels with inadequate room security, and shootings at bars or nightclubs that failed to employ security personnel despite a history of violence. Each situation requires examining whether the property owner knew or should have known about the risk of criminal act and whether they took reasonable steps to address that risk.
What is the Policy Behind Negligent Security Laws?
The goal of negligent security is to stop people from running dangerous businesses or slums. Dangerous properties decrease the value of surrounding properties, monopolize the local police, and deter people from starting businesses or living nearby.
Slum lords and careless property owners need to be deterred from running unsafe businesses. Otherwise, others will come in and run the same kinds of businesses.
When you have no costs for security or anything else, profitability is certain. This creates a race to the bottom for businesses and encourages bad practices. This race to the bottom also punishes good businesses that run their properties safely.
This issue of owners ignoring violence and crime to make a little more profit is at the heart of negligent security cases. Essentially, society does not want to reward irresponsible property owners and business owners for being negligent.
Hypothetical 1
Imagine a car company that could manufacture vehicles unsafely and undercut the prices of all their competitors. In that scenario, the unsafe car manufacturer makes money and undercuts the good manufacturers, and people get hurt or killed in the unsafe cars. Without liability and civil lawsuits to hold bad actors responsible, the decisions are all about profit, and everyone but the bad actors lose.
Hypothetical 2
In the context of negligent security, imagine an owner that allows prostitution and drug dealing at his motel. He knows there is crime there, but he collects rent and does not install any security measures. He essentially found a way to legally profit off of the criminal activity, and he sees no need to ask questions.
Then, imagine a couple traveling through the area decides to stay the night at the motel. They are not from the area, and they aren't aware that the property is dangerous. However, they quickly learn when the wife is shot and killed later that night.
Now, the defense lawyers will argue: "How can we control the actions of the shooter?" In reality, however, a child can see that the owner is responsible for the death of the wife because the owner created the environment that led to the shooting.
When Can Someone Bring a Claim & What Must Be Proven?
To establish a negligent security case under Florida law, victims must prove four essential elements. First, the property owner owed them a legal duty of care as a lawful visitor. Second, criminal activity was reasonably foreseeable based on prior incidents, crime statistics, or the nature of the business. Third, the owner breached their duty by failing to implement reasonable security measures. Fourth, this breach was a legal cause of the victim's injuries and damages.
Both injury victims and families who have lost loved ones to violent crimes may pursue claims, though the damages and procedures differ between personal injury and wrongful death cases. Potential defendants extend beyond just the property owner to include property management companies, security contractors, and businesses leasing the premises.
How Did Florida Negligent Security Laws Change in 2023?
In March 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837 into law, enacting sweeping tort reform law changes that significantly impact negligent security litigation. This tort reform bill fundamentally transformed how Florida courts handle cases where criminal third parties harm victims on a commercial property. Ultimately, the Bill was a major win for insurance companies, but it does not completely eliminate victims' ability to pursue negligent security claims in Florida.
Criminal Attacker on the Verdict Form
Perhaps the most revolutionary change involves Florida Statute 768.0701, which provides the following:
"[I]n an action for damages against the owner, lessor, operator, or manager of commercial or real property brought by a person lawfully on the property who was injured by the criminal act of a third party, the trier of fact must consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury."
Accordingly, Florida negligent security law now requires juries to consider the fault of criminal attackers when apportioning liability. Before this reform, third-party criminal attackers could not be named on verdict form documents as Fabre defendants. Instead, their actions were considered only when evaluating foreseeability and the property owner's negligence.
Now, juries must consider the fault of the criminal attacker. The effect is to shield insurance companies from liability where landowners create a dangerous condition. The new negligent security law does nothing to create positive change and make properties safer.
Pure Comparative Negligence to Modified Comparative Negligence
In addition to Florida Statute 768.0701, HB837 also shifted Florida from pure comparative negligence to modified comparative negligence. Under Florida Statute 768.81, if a plaintiff is found more than 50% at fault for their own injuries, they cannot recover any damages. This aligns Florida's comparative negligence rules with nearby states like Georgia and South Carolina.
From 4-Year to 2-Year Statute of Limitations
After HB 837, the statute of limitations for negligence claims, including negligent security, was reduced from four years to two years under Florida Statute 95.11(5)(a). This shortened timeframe forces victims to reach to an attorney and pursue a claim. Otherwise, they lose their right to pursue compensation under the new laws.
New Negligent Security Laws for Multifamily Residential Properties
Under the new Florida negligent security laws, specifically Florida Statute 768.0706, owners and principal operators of multifamily residential properties have the benefit of a presumption against liability for criminal acts committed by third parties who are not their employees or agents. This applies to buildings with at least five dwelling units on a single parcel.
Security Measures
To qualify for this presumption, property owners must substantially implement seven specific security measures, which 768.0706(2)(a) outlines as follows:
- Security camera systems at all entry and exit points that record and maintain retrievable footage for at least 30 days to assist in offender identification
- Parking lot lighting providing at least 1.8 foot-candles per square foot at 18 inches above the surface from dusk until dawn
- Adequate lighting in walkways, laundry rooms, common areas, and porches from dusk until dawn
- One-inch deadbolts installed in each dwelling unit door
- Locking devices on all windows, exterior sliding doors, and non-community doors
- Locked gates with key or fob access for pool fence areas
- Peepholes or door viewers on dwelling unit doors without adjacent windows
CPTED Assessment
Owners must obtain a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment no more than three years old, performed by a law enforcement agency or Florida CPTED Practitioner designated by the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute. Properties must remain in substantial compliance with assessment recommendations.
Security Training
Additionally, all current employees must receive proper crime deterrence and safety training, with new employees trained within 60 days of hire. This training must familiarize staff with the security principles and devices required under the statute and be reviewed at least every three years.
The burden of proof rests on the property owner to demonstrate substantial implementation of these measures. While this presumption provides significant protection against liability, plaintiffs can still overcome it with evidence showing the implemented measures were inadequate or that the owner had actual knowledge of criminal activity the measures failed to address.
When Did These Changes in Negligent Security Laws Take Place?
These changes apply only to lawsuits filed after March 24, 2023, meaning pending cases follow pre-reform law. Property owners, managers, and commercial tenants may see reduced liability exposure under the new Florida negligent security laws. However, the new laws don't eliminate the duty to maintain reasonable security measures.
The Elements of a Negligent Security Claim in Florida
Plaintiffs must prove four key elements in every negligence case. These elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. Each element is described in greater detail below.
Duty
Property owners owe different duties based on the visitor's status. Business invitees (customers, tenants) receive the highest protection, whereas trespassers are not generally owed a duty of care. Under negligent security laws, the duty includes protection from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties.
Breach
Breach occurs when the property fails to implement adequate security measures reasonable under the circumstances. In negligent security cases, a breach of duty might include:
- Failing to install or maintain lighting,
- Not repairing broken locks or gates,
- Not hiring sufficient security, or
- Ignoring repeated criminal incidents without increasing security measures.
Causation
Victims must prove the security breach was a legal cause of their injuries. This requires showing that proper security measures would have likely deterred or prevented the crime. Expert testimony often becomes crucial in establishing this causal connection.
Damages
Personal injury victims may recover economic damages (medical expenses, lost wages, future care costs) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life). Wrongful death cases allow recovery for funeral expenses, lost support, and survivors' mental anguish. Punitive damages may apply where the property owner's conduct was particularly reckless or showed intentional disregard for safety.
Under Florida's comparative fault system, juries must allocate fault percentages among all parties, including the criminal assailant. The verdict form will ask jurors to determine each party's percentage of responsibility.
Florida Court Decisions on Negligent Security
The best way to understand how the new Florida negligent security laws will affect plaintiffs' rights is to review the most recent case law. Only a few court opinions are on point, more cases will surely work their way through the courts. As case law develops, we will have a better understanding of how Florida's negligent security laws will operate.
Brownlee v. 22nd Ave. Apartments, LLC, 389 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Facts: Adeon Brownlee, a non-resident visitor to an Opa-Locka apartment complex, was shot by an unknown assailant while in a secluded area along the property's north perimeter. Evidence showed the shooter was positioned outside the property on a public street not controlled by the defendants. The property had armed security guards actively patrolling and operational security cameras throughout the complex at the time of the incident.
Holding: The Third District affirmed summary judgment for the property owner and manager, finding they owed no duty to protect against unforeseeable criminal conduct occurring off their premises. The court emphasized that landowners generally have no duty for events occurring off their property unless they created a dangerous condition extending their foreseeable zone of risk beyond property boundaries.
Key takeaways for victims:
- Location of the criminal act matters. Specifically, attacks from outside the property may not create liability.
- Targeted, personal attacks are harder to prove foreseeable.
- Plaintiffs must show that the property owner created conditions that expanded risk beyond property limits.
Johnson v. Garrett, 386 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
Facts: Mr. Garrett visited Flashdancers strip club after drinking, slapped a dancer, then got into an altercation with another patron, Mr. McCrimmon. The confrontation escalated from words to punches, and ultimately McCrimmon shot Garrett in the abdomen. The club had armed guards at the entrance who patted down guests, and firearms were prohibited inside. The property was owned by Johnson and managed by his company KREJ, but leased to Flashdancers, which handled all day-to-day operations including security decisions.
Holding: The Sixth District reversed a jury verdict for plaintiff, holding that the property owner and management company who leased the premises to the strip club operator owed no duty to the patron. The court found that landlords who surrender complete possession and control to tenants are not liable for injuries on the premises. The lease provisions allowing entry for inspections and requiring legal compliance did not constitute sufficient control to establish duty.
Key takeaways for victims:
- Plaintiffs must identify who actually controls security decisions and operations.
- Landlords who lease entire premises typically don't owe duties to tenant's customers.
- The right to inspect or enter the property doesn't equal control over security operations.
Florida Negligent Security Jury Instructions
Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) 401.4 addresses premises liability, including negligent security claims. The instructions guide juries through determining whether the property owner maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition and whether they should have anticipated the criminal act.
Jury Instruction 501.4 covers comparative negligence, requiring juries to assign fault percentages to all parties. The verdict form typically includes questions about:
- Whether the defendant was negligent
- Whether that negligence was a legal cause of damages
- The percentage of fault for each party (including the criminal actor)
- The amount of damages in various categories
These instructions show how the law is applied in a negligent security case.
How a Florida Negligent Security Lawyer Can Help
An experienced negligent security attorney manages the complex process of these claims:
- Investigation - Obtaining police reports, surveillance footage, prior incident reports, and crime statistics for the area
- Expert witnesses - Retaining security professionals specializing in CPTED, lighting standards, and industry security protocols
- Pre-suit negotiations - Attempting resolution before filing to save time and costs
- Filing a lawsuit - Preparing comprehensive pleadings meeting all legal requirements
- Discovery - Deposing key witnesses, corporate representatives, and security personnel
- Mediation advocacy - Presenting your strongest case for settlement
- Trial preparation - Building compelling demonstrative evidence and witness testimony
- Trial advocacy - Presenting your case to a jury when settlement isn't possible
Contact our law firm at 321-LAWSUIT for a free legal consultation. We have experience handling negligent security cases in Florida and in other states. Our firm works on a contingency fee basis, which means you don't pay us any fees unless we recover money for you.
FAQ Section
Adequate security varies by property type and crime history but may include functioning locks, proper lighting, surveillance cameras, controlled access systems, security personnel, and emergency communication systems. The specific measures required depend on the foreseeability of criminal activity.
Following the 2023 tort reform, you have two years from the date of the incident to file a negligence claim. This shortened timeframe makes immediate legal consultation essential.
Yes, if the store knew or should have known about criminal activity risks and failed to implement reasonable security measures. Factors include prior incidents, inadequate lighting, lack of surveillance, and absent security patrols.
Under Florida's modified comparative negligence law, you can recover damages if you're 50% or less at fault. Your recovery is reduced by your fault percentage. However, if you're 51% or more at fault, you cannot recover any damages.
Yes, under 2023's HB 837, multifamily residential properties can gain a presumption against liability by implementing specific security measures outlined in Florida Statute 768.0706. However, the plaintiff can overcome this presumption with evidence of inadequate security or actual knowledge of criminal activity.
Yes, both may be liable if their negligence contributed to your injuries. Property owners remain responsible for overall security, while security contractors can be liable for inadequate performance of their duties.