Consistent Success
for Over 30 Years
for Over 30 Years
Negligent Security Lawyer Los Angeles — When Property Owners Are Liable for Criminal Attacks
| ★ QUICK ANSWER When you are assaulted, robbed, shot, or sexually attacked on someone else’s property in Los Angeles, the criminal who harmed you is not the only party who may be legally responsible. Under California premises liability law and the Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center standard, property owners have a duty to take reasonable security measures against foreseeable criminal acts. If the owner knew of prior criminal activity on or near the property and failed to act — inadequate lighting, broken security gates, no surveillance, insufficient security personnel — they can be held liable for your injuries. These cases routinely produce six- and seven-figure recoveries. |
A criminal attack leaves victims dealing with physical injuries, psychological trauma, lost income, and mounting medical bills — all while processing what happened to them. What most victims do not know is that a third party — the property owner, the apartment complex, the parking garage operator, the hotel — may share legal responsibility for what occurred.
California law does not require property owners to prevent every possible crime. It requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent crimes that were foreseeable — that a reasonable property owner in their position would have anticipated and guarded against. When they fail to do that, and someone is hurt as a result, the law gives victims a path to civil recovery.
Our firm has recovered seven-figure results in negligent security cases throughout Los Angeles and Southern California, including full policy-limits recoveries of $1,000,000 for a sexual assault victim at a storage facility and $1,000,000 for a robbery and shooting victim at a cash advance facility. If you were injured in a criminal attack on someone else’s property, call (866) 966-5240 for a free consultation.
Negligent Security Case Results
| $1,000,000 | Full policy limits — Negligent security of a storage facility resulting in sexual assault of a tenant. Orange County, CA. |
| $1,000,000 | Full policy limits — Negligent security of a cash advance facility resulting in robbery and shooting of victim. Los Angeles, CA. |
| $350,000 | Patron assaulted by bouncer in nightclub — negligent hiring and retention of security staff. West Hollywood, CA. |
Note: Past results are not a guarantee or warranty of future results. Every case must be evaluated on its own merits.
California’s Negligent Security Legal Framework: The Ann M. Standard
The foundational California negligent security case is Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, in which the California Supreme Court established the foreseeability framework that governs all negligent security claims in this state.
The Court held: a landowner’s duty to take affirmative action to control the wrongful acts of third parties is “limited to those instances where the risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable.” The question is not whether the property owner could have imagined any possible crime — it is whether the specific type of crime that occurred was a foreseeable consequence of the security conditions on that property.
| The more foreseeable the criminal risk, the more the property owner is obligated to do about it. A shopping center in an area with documented prior robberies has a different — and higher — security obligation than an office building in a low-crime suburban neighborhood. Ann M. makes foreseeability a sliding scale: as the known risk increases, so does the duty to respond. |
Foreseeability is established through:
- Prior similar incidents on the property — If the same property has a documented history of assaults, robberies, or sexual attacks, that history is powerful evidence that future crimes were foreseeable. Incident reports, police call logs, and property management records are critical discovery targets.
- Prior similar incidents in the immediate area — Crime statistics for the surrounding neighborhood, police district crime maps, and prior incidents at neighboring properties all contribute to foreseeability, even if the specific property has a clean record.
- Known security deficiencies the owner failed to remedy — A broken gate the property manager was notified about three months before the attack. A surveillance camera that had been non-functional for weeks. A burned-out light in the parking garage that appeared on multiple tenant complaint logs. These are not ambiguous — they are documented failures to address known risks.
- The nature of the property and its clientele — California courts have recognized that certain property types — bars and nightclubs, cash-handling businesses, ATM locations, transit-adjacent properties — carry inherently elevated crime risk that creates a heightened duty of care regardless of prior incident history.
The Superseding Cause Defense — And Why It Fails
Property owners almost universally raise a superseding cause defense: the criminal’s act was an independent, unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of causation between the owner’s negligence and the victim’s injuries. California courts have consistently rejected this defense when the criminal attack was a foreseeable consequence of the security failure.
In Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, the California Supreme Court clarified that a criminal act is not a superseding cause when the risk of that act was what made the defendant’s conduct negligent in the first place. If inadequate lighting in a parking garage creates a foreseeable risk of sexual assault, the sexual assault that occurs is not an unforeseeable intervening event — it is the realization of the foreseeable risk.
Under California’s pure comparative fault system, the property owner’s negligence and the criminal’s intentional act can both be causes of the victim’s harm. The owner does not escape liability simply because another party also caused harm.
Negligent Security Cases by Property Type in Los Angeles
Apartment Complexes and Residential Properties
California apartment owners have a recognized heightened duty to maintain security in common areas — parking garages, stairwells, laundry rooms, mailroom areas, hallways, and building entry points. The California Supreme Court in numerous decisions has acknowledged that apartment residents have a reasonable expectation of safety in the common areas of their building that goes beyond what a casual visitor to a commercial property might expect.
Common security failures in apartment complex cases:
- Broken or propped-open security gates at garage entrances and building entries
- Non-functioning or absent security cameras in parking structures and common areas
- Inadequate exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways, and building perimeters
- Failure to rekey locks or change entry codes after prior break-ins or tenant turnover
- Ignored tenant complaints about suspicious activity or prior incidents
- Failure to post or enforce trespass restrictions on known non-tenants
Parking Garages and Structures
Parking garages are among the highest-risk environments for criminal attacks in Los Angeles — enclosed, frequently poorly lit, with limited pedestrian traffic that allows attackers to operate undetected. Robberies, carjackings, and sexual assaults in parking structures are one of the most common categories of negligent security claims our firm handles.
Parking structure operators — whether commercial, hospital, office building, or hotel operators — have a duty to provide adequate lighting, functioning surveillance cameras, security patrols during high-risk hours, and clearly marked emergency call stations. Failure to maintain these measures in a structure with a prior incident history creates strong liability exposure.
Hotels and Motels
Hotel guests have a recognized expectation of security in their rooms, in common areas, and in parking facilities. Hotels have been held liable for:
- Room intrusions due to defective door locks or deadbolts that were reported and not repaired
- Master key theft or duplication that enabled unauthorized room access
- Assaults in hotel parking lots or exterior corridors due to inadequate lighting and patrol
- Failure to respond to prior incidents reported by guests at the same property
- Negligent hiring and retention of hotel staff who commit assaults on guests
Bars, Nightclubs, and Alcohol-Serving Establishments
Establishments that serve alcohol in Los Angeles have elevated security obligations because alcohol consumption predictably increases the risk of violent altercations. Nightclub and bar negligent security cases involve two distinct liability theories:
| Liability Theory | How It Works |
| Third-party patron violence | Owner failed to provide adequate security staff, ejection policies, or crowd management to prevent foreseeable fights among patrons. Ann M. foreseeability analysis applies. |
| Staff-perpetrated violence | Bouncers, security contractors, or employees commit the assault — creating direct liability under respondeat superior and negligent hiring/retention theories. Our $350,000 West Hollywood bouncer assault recovery is an example. |
Dram shop liability under Business and Professions Code § 25602.1 may also apply when an establishment served a visibly intoxicated person who then committed a violent act.
Retail Stores and Shopping Centers
The Ann M. case itself arose from a sexual assault at a shopping center. Retail and shopping center negligent security cases typically involve:
- Assaults in parking lots or parking structures serving the shopping center
- Robberies in or near ATM locations on the property
- Assaults in restrooms or low-traffic areas of large retail stores
- Failure to respond to prior incidents reported by customers or employees
Storage Facilities
Self-storage facilities operate with limited staffing and significant access by strangers — a combination that creates foreseeable risk. Storage facility negligent security cases involve inadequate lighting in storage corridors and access areas, broken or bypassed gate systems, non-functional surveillance cameras, and failure to investigate or respond to prior incidents. Our $1,000,000 full policy-limits storage facility recovery demonstrates the significant verdict exposure in these cases.
Schools, Hospitals, and Institutional Settings
Institutions owe heightened security duties to students, patients, and dependent persons in their care. Sexual assault cases in institutional settings — including our $1,500,000 sexual assault recovery from a mental health facility and $750,000 from a hospital employee assault case — often involve the additional theory of negligent hiring and retention when the perpetrator had a known prior history of misconduct that the institution failed to investigate. See our sexual assault and abuse practice area page for more on institutional sexual assault claims.
What You Must Prove in a California Negligent Security Case
California negligent security cases are a form of premises liability. You must establish the following elements:
| Element | What It Means | Key Authority |
| Duty | The defendant owned, operated, leased, or controlled the property where the attack occurred. | Civil Code § 1714; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 |
| Breach | The defendant failed to take reasonable security measures against a foreseeable criminal risk — inadequate lighting, broken gates, no surveillance, insufficient staffing. | Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666 |
| Causation | The security failure was a substantial factor in allowing the criminal attack to occur. The attack was a foreseeable consequence of the failure, not an unforeseeable superseding event. | Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181 |
| Damages | You suffered physical injury, psychological harm, economic loss, or a combination — caused by the attack. | Civil Code § 3281; CACI 3905A |
Evidence That Makes Negligent Security Cases
The strength of a negligent security case depends almost entirely on the quality of the prior-incident and security-failure evidence. The following are the most important evidence targets:
- Police call logs and crime reports for the property and surrounding area in the years preceding the attack
- Property management incident reports and maintenance logs for security equipment
- Prior tenant or guest complaints about security conditions — written communications, emails, logged calls
- Surveillance camera footage — preserved immediately, as overwrite cycles are often 30 days or less
- Security lighting inspection records and maintenance logs
- Contracts with security companies and guard patrol logs for the period preceding the attack
- Expert testimony from a security standards expert on industry practices and the specific failures present
| Surveillance footage is almost always the most critical early evidence in a negligent security case — and the most perishable. Most commercial security systems overwrite footage on a 30- to 90-day cycle. An attorney who issues a preservation demand within days of the attack can compel the property owner to preserve footage that would otherwise be permanently lost. Waiting even two or three weeks can mean that evidence is gone forever. |
Compensation Available in California Negligent Security Cases
Negligent security cases produce some of the highest-value premises liability settlements in California because the injuries are often catastrophic, the defendants are commercial entities with substantial insurance coverage, and juries respond strongly to evidence of property owners who ignored known dangers.
| Damage Category | What It Covers |
| Medical expenses (past and future) | Emergency treatment, hospitalization, surgery, and — critically — psychiatric and psychological treatment for PTSD, trauma therapy, and ongoing mental health care. Trauma treatment is frequently the largest ongoing cost in assault and sexual attack cases. |
| Lost wages and earning capacity | Time off work during physical and psychological recovery. For victims with permanent PTSD or trauma-related conditions, lost earning capacity over a career lifetime is a major damages component. |
| Pain and suffering | Physical pain and mental suffering — including the ongoing psychological impact of the attack. No cap applies in California premises liability cases. CACI 3905A governs. |
| Emotional distress | Anxiety, depression, PTSD, fear, hypervigilance, and the disruption to daily life caused by the attack. Emotional distress is a separate compensable category, distinct from pain and suffering. |
| Loss of enjoyment of life | The permanent reduction in ability to engage in activities — social, recreational, intimate, professional — that the attack and its aftermath have caused. |
| Punitive damages | Available under Civil Code § 3294 when the property owner had actual knowledge of prior similar attacks and consciously chose not to address the security failures. Commercial property owners with documented prior incidents face real punitive exposure. |
| Wrongful death damages | For families who lose a loved one in a criminal attack on negligently secured property — financial support, companionship, grief, and funeral expenses under CCP § 377.60. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a property owner if I was attacked on their property in California?
Yes — if the attack was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable security measures. Under Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, California property owners have a duty to address foreseeable criminal risks on their property. The key question is whether prior incidents, area crime data, or known security failures made this specific type of attack foreseeable.
What is the Ann M. standard for negligent security?
Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666 is the California Supreme Court case establishing that a property owner’s duty to prevent criminal attacks is determined by the foreseeability of the harm. Prior incidents on or near the property, known security failures, and the nature of the property and its clientele all contribute to foreseeability. The higher the foreseeable risk, the greater the owner’s obligation to respond.
Does the criminal’s act break the property owner’s liability?
No — not in California when the criminal act was foreseeable. Under Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, a criminal attack is not a superseding cause when the risk of that attack was precisely what made the security failure negligent. California’s pure comparative fault system allows both the criminal and the property owner to be held responsible for the victim’s harm.
How long do I have to file a negligent security claim in California?
Generally two years from the date of the attack (CCP § 335.1). Six months if a government entity owns the property (Gov. Code § 911.2). Sexual assault victims have additional statutory protections under CCP § 340.16. The most urgent early action is preserving surveillance footage — which is overwritten on 30- to 90-day cycles — not the lawsuit filing deadline.
What evidence is most important in a negligent security case?
Surveillance footage (preserve immediately — overwrite cycles begin at 30 days), police call logs and prior incident reports for the property, property management maintenance and complaint records for security equipment, and expert testimony on security industry standards. An attorney must act within days of the attack to preserve this evidence.
How much is a negligent security case worth in California?
Case value depends on injury severity, the strength of the prior-incident evidence establishing foreseeability, the defendant’s insurance coverage, and punitive damages exposure. Our firm has recovered $1,000,000 (full policy limits) in two separate negligent security matters and $1,500,000 in a related institutional sexual assault case. For settlement ranges by injury type and property category, see: Average Premises Liability Settlement in California (2026 Guide)
| FREE CONSULTATION | NO FEE UNLESS WE WIN If you were assaulted, robbed, shot, or sexually attacked on someone else’s property in Los Angeles or Southern California, you may have a civil claim against the property owner — in addition to any criminal case. These cases require immediate action to preserve surveillance footage and incident records before they are lost. Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC has recovered over $2,000,000 in negligent security cases in Southern California. We handle all cases on contingency — you pay nothing unless we recover money for you. 📞 (866) 966-5240 | victimslawyer.com | Se habla español | Evening and weekend appointments available ★ Super Lawyers (since 2012) · ★ Avvo 10.0 · ★ Top 100 Trial Lawyers · ★ Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum |