What Is Negligent Security in Florida? Understanding Property Owner Liability

Someone is assaulted, robbed, shot, or otherwise injured by another person at an apartment complex, hotel, store, parking area, or other property.

Does the crime automatically make the property owner responsible?

No.

The person who committed the crime is responsible for that criminal act. But Florida law can also examine whether the owner, operator, landlord, manager, or another party responsible for the property failed to take reasonable security precautions against a danger that should have been anticipated.

That is the basic idea behind a negligent security claim.

The key questions are usually whether the criminal danger was reasonably foreseeable, whether reasonable security measures were lacking, and whether that failure contributed to the injury.

What Does Negligent Security Mean in Florida?

Negligent security is a type of premises-liability claim involving an injury caused by criminal conduct on someone else’s property.

The claim does not accuse the property owner of committing the assault, robbery, shooting, or other crime.

Instead, it focuses on the property side’s own conduct.

For example, a claim might involve allegations concerning broken access gates, defective locks, inadequate lighting, repeated security complaints, or failure to respond reasonably to a known pattern of criminal activity.

But none of those conditions automatically establishes negligence.

Florida law generally asks whether the criminal danger was reasonably foreseeable, what precautions were reasonable under the circumstances, and whether an alleged security failure actually contributed to the injury.

Is a Property Owner Responsible Every Time a Crime Happens?

No.

Florida law does not make a property owner an insurer against every criminal act that might occur.

In Varone v. Publix, decided in March 2026, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed a random shooting inside a Publix store. The court concluded that Publix did not have a legal duty to protect against that attack based on the evidence presented because sufficiently similar prior criminal conduct had not made that type of event reasonably foreseeable at the store. National grocery-store shooting statistics and general active-shooter training did not establish otherwise.

The case illustrates an important point:

The fact that a crime was theoretically possible is different from showing that the property owner reasonably should have anticipated that danger.

When Can a Property Owner Be Liable for Negligent Security?

A Florida negligent-security claim generally requires more than showing that security could have been better.

Several questions usually need to be examined.

Did the Defendant Control the Property or Security?

Responsibility can depend on who owned, leased, operated, managed, or controlled the property and its security.

Depending on the situation, that could include a property owner, landlord, business operator, manager, commercial tenant, or another entity with responsibility for security or access control.

Florida’s current third-party-crime statute expressly refers to actions against an owner, lessor, operator, or manager of commercial or real property.

Was the Criminal Danger Reasonably Foreseeable?

This is often the central issue.

Prior crimes, threats, police calls, security incidents, or other warning signs may help show that the responsible party had reason to anticipate criminal danger.

But foreseeability is highly fact-specific.

Were Reasonable Security Precautions Lacking?

The law does not require every property to use every possible security measure.

The question is whether the foreseeable risk called for precautions that were not reasonably provided or maintained.

Did the Security Failure Contribute to the Injury?

Even when security was imperfect, there must still be a meaningful connection between the alleged failure and the crime that caused the injury.

What Makes a Crime “Foreseeable” in a Florida Negligent Security Case?

Foreseeability asks whether the property side had enough warning to make the danger reasonably anticipatable.

Evidence can include:

• Prior violent or criminal incidents
• Police reports
• Calls for service
• 911 records
• Threats
• Tenant or customer complaints
• Internal security reports
• Repeated fights or disturbances
• Prior break-ins or assaults

Florida courts have long recognized that foreseeability may arise from knowledge of a particular dangerous person or from past experience showing a broader likelihood of dangerous conduct by third parties.

But current cases also show that the analysis cannot be reduced to a simple formula.

The prior activity should have a meaningful connection to the later danger. Factors such as the type of crime, location, timing, property, and controlling appellate precedent can all matter.

In Byndom v. Waffle House, the Eleventh Circuit, applying Florida law in 2026, explained that relevant foreseeability evidence can include the general likelihood of harm, criminal activity in the area, and security measures already being used. But the evidence still must support an objectively reasonable expectation of the danger that caused the injury.

Does the Same Crime Have to Have Happened Before?

Not necessarily in every Florida negligent-security case.

Older Florida Supreme Court cases recognize that a history of disorderly or violent activity can sometimes make later harm foreseeable even when the earlier incidents are not carbon copies of the eventual attack.

At the same time, recent Fourth District cases have taken a stricter approach when deciding whether a landowner had a legal duty to protect against a third-party criminal attack.

For that reason, it would be too broad to say either:

“The exact same crime always must have happened before.”

or:

“Any previous crime somewhere nearby is enough.”

The stronger question is whether the earlier activity gave the property owner or operator a meaningful reason to anticipate the type of danger that ultimately caused the injury.

What Evidence Can Show That Criminal Activity Was Foreseeable?

Negligent-security cases often depend heavily on records created before the attack.

Police Reports and Calls for Service

These records may show repeated criminal activity or disturbances linked to the property or immediate area.

911 and Dispatch Records

Calls for service may reveal recurring problems even when no arrest or prosecution followed.

Security and Incident Logs

Internal records can show whether management already knew about threats, fights, burglaries, assaults, or other safety concerns.

Tenant or Customer Complaints

Complaints may establish that people using the property directly warned management about particular security problems.

Prior Similar Incidents

Earlier crimes can help establish a pattern when they are sufficiently connected in type, location, timing, and circumstances.

Surveillance and Internal Records

Video and management records may help show how previous incidents occurred, whether access controls failed, and whether security practices changed afterward.

Cohen Injury Law’s existing negligent-security page similarly identifies evidence such as police reports, 911 calls, security logs, and other records as potentially important when investigating foreseeability.

What Security Problems Can Support a Negligent Security Claim?

Possible issues can include:

• Broken gates
• Defective door locks
• Poorly functioning access-control systems
• Inadequate lighting
• Nonfunctioning surveillance equipment
• Failure to respond to repeated security incidents
• Insufficient monitoring
• Inadequate security staffing where the circumstances reasonably called for it

But a checklist alone does not prove negligence.

Suppose an apartment entrance gate was broken.

That fact becomes more significant if evidence shows the attacker entered through that gate.

Poor parking-lot lighting may matter if darkness helped conceal an attacker.

The absence of a security guard matters only if the history and nature of the property reasonably called for security staffing.

The legal question is not merely:

“Could more security have been provided?”

It is:

“What security was reasonable for this foreseeable risk, and did the failure to provide it contribute to the injury?”

Does Better Security Have to Be Connected to the Crime?

Yes. Causation is separate from foreseeability.

A property may have security shortcomings without those shortcomings causing a particular attack.

For example, a broken perimeter gate may have little connection to the injury if the assailant was already lawfully inside the property.

Similarly, a broken exterior light may have little relevance to an attack that happened in a well-lit interior room.

Byndom reinforces the need for evidence connecting the alleged premises-security failures to the violent conduct at issue rather than simply identifying additional precautions that might theoretically have been taken.

That connection can be one of the most important parts of a negligent-security case.

Who Can Be Responsible for Negligent Security?

The titled property owner is not necessarily the only party whose responsibilities matter.

Depending on who controlled the premises or security function, possible parties can include:

• Property owner
• Landlord
• Property operator
• Property manager
• Commercial tenant
• Security contractor

Florida Statute §768.0701 specifically addresses third-party criminal-act claims against owners, lessors, operators, and managers of commercial or real property when the injured person was lawfully on the premises.

The practical question is:

Who had responsibility for the security condition connected to the attack?

Why Does the Criminal’s Own Fault Still Matter?

A negligent-security claim does not transfer all responsibility for an attack from the criminal to the property owner.

Under current Florida Statute §768.0701, in a covered premises-liability action involving injury from a third party’s criminal act, the factfinder must consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury.

The criminal can therefore remain responsible for committing the attack while a property defendant may separately be alleged to have contributed through negligent security.

Those are different forms of responsibility.

What Special Negligent Security Rules Apply to Florida Apartment Complexes?

Florida has a specific security statute for qualifying multifamily residential properties.

Section 768.0706 defines covered multifamily property to include residential buildings or groups of buildings such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums with at least five dwelling units on a particular parcel.

An owner or principal operator that substantially implements the statute’s security measures receives a presumption against liability for certain criminal acts committed on the premises by third parties who are not employees or agents.

The statutory security measures include requirements concerning:

• Entry and exit cameras
• Retrievable video footage
• Parking-lot and common-area lighting
• Deadbolts
• Window and exterior-door locks
• Certain pool-gate locks
• Door viewers
• Crime-prevention assessments
• Employee security training

The distinction is important:

The statute creates a presumption—not automatic immunity.

The owner or principal operator has the burden of proving substantial implementation of the listed security measures. The statute also expressly says that it does not establish a private cause of action.

So failing to satisfy §768.0706 does not, by itself, automatically prove a negligent-security claim.

Do Florida Convenience Businesses Have Different Security Rules?

Yes.

Florida Statute §768.0705 provides a separate presumption against liability for qualifying convenience businesses that substantially implement the applicable security measures required by Florida law.

That is another reason negligent-security claims cannot be analyzed with one universal checklist.

Different types of property can have different statutory rules in addition to general Florida premises-liability principles.

How Can Cohen Injury Law Help With a Florida Negligent Security Claim?

At Cohen Injury Law, we investigate whether warning signs of foreseeable criminal activity existed and whether reasonable security measures were in place.

We can examine police and 911 records, surveillance, security logs, lighting, locks, gates, property records, and witness information. Our founding attorney, Zach Cohen, began his career representing insurance companies in personal injury matters, giving us insight into how insurers evaluate claims.

We represent injured clients in negligent-security and other personal injury matters across South Florida. Call 954-246-3999 for a free consultation from our Fort Lauderdale office.

Final Thoughts

Negligent security does not make a Florida property owner responsible for every crime that happens on the premises.

A viable claim generally depends on evidence connecting several issues:

a reasonably foreseeable criminal danger, responsibility for property security, inadequate precautions under the circumstances, and a security failure that contributed to the injury.

Prior crimes, police records, complaints, gates, locks, lighting, cameras, and security practices can all matter—but their importance depends on how they connect to the particular attack.

That is why negligent-security claims are highly fact-specific rather than simple judgments about whether a property could have had “more security.”