The Short Answer: Yes, in Appropriate Circumstances

Florida law recognizes that property owners can be held liable for injuries caused by criminal acts on their property — but only when the criminal act was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. This is the doctrine of negligent security, a form of premises liability that applies to shootings, assaults, robberies, and other violent incidents at commercial properties.

The key legal concept is foreseeability. A property owner is not an insurer against all criminal acts. But when the owner knew or should have known that criminal activity was likely on or near the property — based on prior incidents, crime statistics, or the nature of the business — and failed to take reasonable security measures, the owner may be liable for injuries caused by a subsequent criminal act.

What Makes a Crime Foreseeable?

Courts look at several factors to determine whether a criminal act was foreseeable. The most important is the history of criminal activity on or near the property. Prior incidents of the same type — prior shootings, prior assaults, prior robberies — are strong evidence that the owner knew crime was a problem and should have taken steps to address it. Police reports, 911 call logs, and the property's own incident reports are all relevant evidence.

Courts also consider the nature of the business and the population it serves. A bar or nightclub that serves alcohol late at night in a high-crime area has a higher duty to provide security than a suburban office building. A property that has received complaints about criminal activity, or that has been the subject of prior lawsuits involving crime, is on notice that security measures are needed.

What Security Measures Should a Property Owner Provide?

The adequacy of security is measured against what a reasonable property owner would have done under the same circumstances. Reasonable security measures may include: adequate lighting in parking lots, stairwells, and common areas; functioning security cameras and access control systems; security guards or patrols where the risk of crime is elevated; proper locks, gates, and fencing; and policies for responding to security incidents.

A property owner who has received recommendations from law enforcement or a security consultant and failed to implement them is in a particularly difficult position. Evidence that the owner was aware of specific security deficiencies and chose not to address them can support a finding of negligence — and in egregious cases, punitive damages.

Evidence in a Negligent Security Case

Negligent security cases require thorough investigation. Key evidence includes: police reports and 911 call logs for the property and surrounding area; the property's own incident reports and security logs; surveillance camera footage; records of prior complaints or security assessments; the property's security policies and staffing records; and expert testimony from security professionals.

Much of this evidence is in the exclusive possession of the property owner and must be obtained through litigation discovery. An attorney can also retain a security expert to evaluate whether the owner's security measures were adequate given the foreseeable risk of crime.

Who Is Responsible — The Criminal or the Property Owner?

Both. The criminal who committed the act is liable for the harm they caused. But in many cases, the criminal has no resources to compensate the victim. The property owner, by contrast, typically has liability insurance. Holding the property owner accountable for failing to prevent a foreseeable crime serves both a compensatory purpose — providing recovery for the victim — and a deterrent purpose — incentivizing property owners to invest in adequate security.