Negligent security claims
A property owner is not responsible for every crime committed on their land. They can be responsible where the crime was foreseeable and they did nothing — and California has drawn that line with unusual precision.
Foreseeability, and the sliding scale
California courts have repeatedly addressed when a landowner must guard against third-party crime. The answer is a balance: the more burdensome the precaution, the more foreseeable the harm must be before it is required.
At one end, cheap measures — working lights, a functioning gate lock, trimmed shrubbery, a repaired fence — can be required on a relatively modest showing. At the other, hiring armed security guards generally requires something close to prior similar incidents on the premises, following Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666.
Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224 added an important qualification: where an owner's own staff observe an unfolding threat, a duty to take simple steps can arise from that observation alone, without any history of prior crime.
What the investigation looks for
- Prior similar incidents at the property — obtained through police call-for-service histories, which are public records and often reveal a pattern the owner will deny knowing about.
- Security measures promised and not delivered. A listing that advertised gated parking and controlled access, where the gate has been broken for months, is a powerful fact.
- Lighting surveys. Illumination levels are measurable against standards, and dark parking lots and walkways are the most common physical finding.
- Camera coverage that was decorative. Dummy cameras, or real ones not recording, appear with depressing regularity.
- Guard contracts and post orders, where guards existed — what they were supposed to do, and whether they did it.
- Broken locks, propped doors and failed access control in apartment buildings and hotels.
Where these claims arise
Apartment complexes and their parking lots; hotels and motels; bars and nightclubs, including injuries caused by security staff themselves; shopping center parking lots; parking lots and structures; student housing; and gas stations and convenience stores open late.
Questions people ask
The attacker was never caught. Can I still bring a claim?
Yes. A negligent security claim is against the property owner for failing to take reasonable precautions, not against the attacker. It does not require an arrest, a charge or a conviction, and the standard of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal one.
How do I show the owner should have known it was dangerous?
Usually through the history of the property: police call-for-service records, prior incident reports, tenant complaints, and in some cases the crime statistics of the immediate area. California's case law puts significant weight on prior similar incidents, particularly where the precaution sought is an expensive one.
The apartment advertised gated parking and the gate had been broken for months.
That is a strong fact. It establishes that the owner identified the risk, represented that it was addressed, and then let the measure fail. Documented complaints from residents about the same gate make it stronger still.
Related
Reviewed October 2026 by Simon Aziz Budhwani, Esq., the attorney responsible for this site. Legal statements here name the California code section they rely on, so you can check them rather than trust them. This is information about the law in general, not advice about your situation.
Find out where you stand.
Tell us what happened and we will tell you honestly whether you have a claim worth bringing, what it is likely to involve, and how long it tends to take. The review is free and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.