Yes, in California you may be able to sue a property owner for an assault committed by someone else on their property, but only if the owner failed to use reasonable care under circumstances where that kind of crime could reasonably have been anticipated. This is called a premises liability claim for negligent security, and it is separate from any criminal case against the person who attacked you.
Can You Sue a Property Owner Who Didn’t Attack You?
Yes. If a property owner’s failure to use reasonable care made an assault possible under circumstances where that kind of crime could reasonably have been anticipated, you can bring a civil claim against the owner, not just against the person who attacked you. This is called a premises liability claim, and the specific version that applies to criminal attacks is sometimes called negligent security.
The claim is not that the owner caused the assault. It is that the owner controlled the property, had some ability to make it safer, and did not take reasonable steps given what they knew or should have known about the risk. Whether that risk was foreseeable, and whether the owner’s response to it was adequate, are the two questions that decide the case.
What Is Considered Negligent Security?
Negligent security is considered present when a business open to the public, or a landlord, failed to use reasonable care to protect people on the property from another person’s criminal conduct that could reasonably have been anticipated. This is the actual standard set out in California’s jury instruction on the subject, CACI No. 1005, and it is narrower than simply asking whether the property was safe.
That instruction splits the question into two parts, decided by two different people. Whether the owner had a duty to protect against this kind of crime at all, meaning whether it was reasonably foreseeable, is a question of law that a judge decides before the case ever reaches a jury. Only after that threshold is met does a jury get asked the second question: whether the specific steps the owner took, or did not take, were adequate and reasonable under the circumstances.
Where Do These Claims Usually Come Up?
These claims come up most often at apartment complexes, parking structures, hotels, and bars, because each of these involves a property owner who controls shared or semi-public space that other people pass through, often with limited ability to screen who comes in. The common thread is not the type of property but the owner’s degree of control over conditions that affect safety.
Apartment complexes raise it through unsecured common areas, broken gate locks, or units in buildings with a known history of break-ins or assaults. Parking structures raise it through dark stairwells, blind corners, and entrances anyone can walk into unchecked. Hotels raise it through guest room access, hallway monitoring, and who front desk staff let past the lobby. Bars and similar venues raise it through crowding, inadequate staffing at closing time, and poorly lit exterior areas like parking lots, separate from any question about alcohol service itself.
What Evidence Actually Matters in a Negligent Security Case?
The evidence that actually matters is whatever shows the owner knew or should have known this kind of crime was a real risk, and whatever shows what they did or did not do about it. Prior incidents on the same property, or nearby, are usually the single most important piece, because they go directly to foreseeability. Only when heightened foreseeability of this kind of crime exists, shown by prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assault at that location, does the duty extend to providing security guards. Even without that showing, an owner who has no duty to hire a guard still owes a duty of due care to a patron or invitee by virtue of the special relationship, and the absence of a prior incident does not end the inquiry; courts look at all of the circumstances to assess foreseeability.
After that, the evidence tends to cluster around a few categories: lighting that was broken, removed, or insufficient in the area where the assault happened; locks, gates, or access controls that did not work or were never installed; security guards who were cut, reduced, or simply not posted where a prior incident said they should have been; and video footage, which can show both what happened and whether a camera that was supposed to be working actually was. Documenting these conditions quickly matters, because property owners routinely repair or replace exactly these things once they learn someone was hurt.
Did this property have prior incidents you were never told about?
Owners are not required to volunteer that history, and it often only surfaces once a formal records request is made.
Is the Property Owner Responsible for What the Attacker Did?
No. The property owner’s civil responsibility and the attacker’s criminal responsibility are two separate matters that run on separate tracks. The owner is not being sued for committing the assault; the owner is being sued for failing to take reasonable steps that might have prevented it.
A criminal case against the attacker, if one happens at all, is prosecuted by the government and aims at punishment. A civil premises liability claim against the owner is a different proceeding, with a different standard of proof, and it can move forward whether or not the attacker is ever caught, charged, or convicted. The outcome of one does not control the outcome of the other.
Are There Deadlines to Sue a Property Owner?
Yes, strict deadlines apply to these claims, and they are shorter than most people expect. Missing the applicable deadline can permanently bar the claim regardless of how strong the evidence is, so this is not something to wait on while security footage gets overwritten or a scene gets repaired.
The exact deadline depends on the facts of the case and who the claim is against, which is why it is worth having the timeline reviewed early rather than assuming there is plenty of time. Property owners and their insurers know these windows exist, and the physical evidence that supports a claim, like lighting conditions or video retention, usually has its own much shorter shelf life.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the four proofs of negligence? In a general negligence case, the four elements are duty, breach, causation, and damage: did the defendant owe a duty of care, did they breach it, did that breach cause the harm, and did the harm result in actual damage? In a negligent security case specifically, the duty question is whether the crime was reasonably foreseeable, and the breach question is whether the owner’s security measures were adequate given that risk. Causation and damage then ask whether the inadequate security actually contributed to what happened to you, and whether you were harmed as a result.
Can I sue my landlord for emotional distress in California? Whether emotional distress can be part of a negligent security claim depends on the specific facts of your situation. A review of your case is the only way to know where you stand.
Who decides whether a property owner should have seen the attack coming? That question, whether the owner reasonably could have anticipated this kind of crime, is decided by a judge as a matter of law, not by a jury. Once a judge finds that duty exists, a jury separately decides whether the specific security measures the owner had in place were adequate and reasonable. Both steps have to happen before an owner can be held responsible.
If you were assaulted on someone else’s property, a straightforward conversation with an attorney can tell you whether you have a viable premises liability claim and what evidence to protect right now. There is no fee unless we win. If there is no recovery, no case costs are charged either. Call 310-600-7881 for a free case review, or send us the details and we will call you back.
