Arkansas property owners can be liable when a third party assaults / robs / shoots someone on their premises if the owner failed to provide reasonable security and prior incidents made the crime foreseeable.
Published May 8, 2026
## Negligent security claims in Arkansas
**Negligent security** (also called "premises violence" or "third-party criminal acts" liability) holds property owners + managers responsible when criminal acts injure someone on their property — IF reasonable security would have prevented it AND the crime was foreseeable.
## Key elements
**Plaintiff must prove:**
1. **Duty** — owner owed plaintiff a duty (was invitee / licensee)
2. **Foreseeability** — owner knew or should have known of risk
3. **Breach** — failure to provide reasonable security
4. **Causation** — that failure was a substantial factor in injury
5. **Damages** — actual harm + losses
## Common negligent-security cases
**Apartment complexes:**
- Tenant assaulted in parking lot / common areas
- Break-in despite known security issues
- Lack of working locks / lighting / patrols
- Failure to address known threats
**Hotels / motels:**
- Guest assaulted in room / parking
- Failed key control
- Inadequate lighting / cameras
- Lack of staff
**Bars / clubs / restaurants:**
- Patrons assaulted
- Inadequate bouncers / security
- Over-serving fueling violence
- Failure to call police promptly
**Shopping malls / parking lots:**
- Customer assaulted / robbed in parking
- Inadequate lighting / patrols
- Known criminal activity ignored
**Convenience stores / gas stations:**
- Late-night robberies
- Inadequate cameras / lighting
- Single-clerk staffing despite robbery history
- Lack of bullet-resistant features
**Office buildings:**
- Tenant / visitor attacked
- Lobby / parking security failures
- Inadequate access control
**Schools / colleges:**
- Student / staff attacked
- Sometimes governmental immunity
- Specific federal laws (Title IX, Clery Act)
**Concerts / events:**
- Crowd violence
- Inadequate security
- Known threat ignored
## Foreseeability — the central issue
**Tests vary by state, but consider:**
**"Specific harm" rule:**
- Owner knew of specific imminent threat
- Most restrictive test
- Only obvious situations qualify
**"Prior similar incidents" rule:**
- Similar prior incidents on premises
- Common test
- Look at frequency, recency, severity
**"Totality of circumstances":**
- All factors considered
- Crime in surrounding area
- Owner's knowledge
- Type of business
- Most plaintiff-friendly
**"Balancing test":**
- Weighs likelihood + severity vs cost of prevention
- Practical analysis
## Reasonable security measures
**Depending on circumstances, may include:**
- **Adequate lighting** — interior + exterior
- **Working locks + access controls**
- **Security cameras** + functioning recording
- **Security guards / staffing**
- **Bouncers** at bars / clubs
- **Active monitoring**
- **Police calls / liaison**
- **Trained staff**
- **Security audits**
- **Crime-prevention through environmental design (CPTED)**
- **Visible security presence**
- **Emergency call boxes / panic alarms**
- **Tenant safety policies**
- **Background checks for employees**
- **Visitor sign-in / access**
**"Reasonable" is fact-specific:**
- High-crime area = more security needed
- Late-night business = more security needed
- High-value targets = more security needed
- Prior incidents = more security needed
## Common defenses
**1. No duty / not foreseeable:**
- Crime was unprecedented
- No reason to anticipate violence
- Plaintiff was trespasser (limited duty)
- Truly random act
**2. Adequate security existed:**
- Security guards present
- Cameras + lighting in place
- Reasonable measures taken
- Industry standards met
**3. Causation issues:**
- Even with more security, crime would have happened
- Plaintiff's own conduct contributed
- Independent intervening cause
- Determined criminal would have succeeded anyway
**4. Comparative fault:**
- Plaintiff acted negligently
- Plaintiff in dangerous area unnecessarily
- Plaintiff ignored warnings
- Reduces or bars recovery (depends on state)
## Damages available
**Compensatory:**
- Past + future medical (mental health crucial)
- Past + future lost wages
- Diminished earning capacity
- Pain & suffering
- Emotional distress (PTSD common)
- Disfigurement / scarring
- Loss of consortium
**Punitive damages possible if:**
- Conscious disregard of known risk
- Pattern of similar incidents ignored
- Particularly egregious circumstances
**Wrongful death** if victim died:
- Funeral expenses
- Lost companionship
- Lost financial support
## Critical evidence
**Crime statistics:**
- Police calls to property
- Crime reports in area
- Number + type of prior incidents
- Trends over time
**Property records:**
- Incident reports + complaints
- Tenant communications about safety
- Maintenance records (lights, locks)
- Security audits / consultations
- Insurance recommendations
- Communications between management + ownership
**Industry standards:**
- ASIS (American Society for Industrial Security)
- Hotel / property management standards
- Local ordinances
- Industry-specific guidelines
**Expert witnesses:**
- Security experts (often ex-law-enforcement)
- Crime analysts
- Risk assessment professionals
- Former property managers
## Statute of limitations
Arkansas's general personal-injury statute of limitations applies — typically 1-3 years from injury. Wrongful death has separate (often shorter) clock.
## Why these cases settle (often substantially)
**Sympathetic plaintiff** + **clear documentation gaps** + **insurance coverage** = settlement leverage:
- Insurance companies prefer settlement to trial
- Reputational risk for properties
- Punitive damages exposure
- Plaintiff sympathy in court
- Documentation of repeated complaints often damning
## Apartment complex specifics
**Common issues:**
- Marketed as "secure" / "gated"
- Prior crime incidents not disclosed
- Lighting outages not fixed
- Locks not maintained
- Background checks of tenants inadequate
- Promised security guards eliminated
- Lease violations of safety provisions
**Damages often substantial** in apartment cases.
## Common attacker scenarios
- **Random crime** — burglary, robbery, assault
- **Domestic violence** by tenant on premises
- **Tenant-on-tenant** assault
- **Employee-on-customer** (negligent hiring/retention)
- **Stranger** entering after access failures
- **Drug-related** violence
- **Gang-related** activity
Different scenarios trigger different liability theories.
## Negligent hiring + retention
**Related claim** when employee commits crime:
- Employer should have known of dangerous propensities
- Inadequate background checks
- Failure to act on prior complaints
- Inadequate supervision
## What you should do
If you (or a loved one) was attacked on commercial property in Arkansas: hire a personal-injury attorney with negligent-security experience IMMEDIATELY. Evidence preservation is critical. Many Arkansas PI attorneys handle these cases on contingency. These cases often involve substantial damages — strong settlements / verdicts common when documentation supports liability.
---
*This guide is general information about Arkansas law as of mid-2026 and is not legal advice. Negligent-security cases are evidence-driven + state-specific. Talk to a licensed Arkansas personal-injury attorney about your specific situation.*
This guide is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change and outcomes depend on your specific situation — talk to a licensed attorney before acting on anything you read here.