Negligent Security
Negligent Security Claims: When Property Owners Fail to Protect You From Foreseeable Criminal Acts
When you're assaulted in a parking garage, robbed at gunpoint in a hotel parking lot, or attacked in an apartment complex stairwell — the criminal who harmed you bears primary responsibility. But if the property owner failed to provide adequate security despite knowing the area was dangerous, they bear responsibility too. This is negligent security law, and it holds property owners accountable for creating conditions that allow foreseeable criminal acts to occur.
At Koussan Law, I bring negligent security claims against apartment complexes, hotels, shopping centers, parking garages, bars, nightclubs, hospitals, and any commercial property where inadequate security contributed to a violent crime. These cases are about a simple failure: the property owner knew or should have known about the risk of criminal activity on their premises and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the people there.
What Makes a Crime "Foreseeable"
The key legal question in negligent security cases is foreseeability — could the property owner have reasonably anticipated that criminal activity would occur? Evidence of foreseeability includes: prior criminal incidents on the property or in the immediate area, police reports and crime data for the surrounding neighborhood, complaints from tenants or visitors about safety concerns, the property's location in a high-crime area, and industry standards for security in similar properties. A hotel in a neighborhood with documented violent crime that operates without security cameras, adequate lighting, or functioning door locks has essentially invited the harm that occurs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What security measures should property owners provide?
There's no one-size-fits-all answer — the required level of security depends on the type of property, its location, and the foreseeable risk of criminal activity. Common measures include adequate exterior and interior lighting, functioning security cameras, controlled access (locks, key cards, gates), security personnel for high-risk properties, emergency call stations, and regular patrols. I compare what the property owner actually provided against what a reasonable owner would have provided given the known risks.
Q: Can I sue both the criminal and the property owner?
Yes. The criminal is liable for the intentional tort (assault, battery, etc.), and the property owner is liable for negligence in failing to prevent the foreseeable crime. These are separate legal theories and separate defendants. In practice, the property owner's insurance — commercial general liability coverage — often provides more meaningful recovery than pursuing the criminal personally, though both claims can proceed simultaneously.
Q: What if the criminal hasn't been caught or convicted?
Your civil claim against the property owner doesn't depend on the criminal being identified or convicted. The negligent security claim focuses on the property owner's failure to provide adequate security, not on the criminal's identity. I've brought successful negligent security claims where the assailant was never identified — because the property owner's negligence was provable regardless.
Q: What is the statute of limitations for a negligent security claim in Michigan?
Three years from the date of the incident under MCL § 600.5805. If the property is government-owned, the 120-day notice requirement under MCL § 691.1404 applies. For sexual assault cases, extended timelines may apply under MCL § 600.5851b. These deadlines are critical because surveillance footage — often the most important evidence in negligent security cases — is routinely overwritten within 30-90 days unless a preservation demand is sent immediately.
