## Negligent security claims in Pennsylvania **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 Pennsylvania'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 Pennsylvania: hire a personal-injury attorney with negligent-security experience IMMEDIATELY. Evidence preservation is critical. Many Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania law as of mid-2026 and is not legal advice. Negligent-security cases are evidence-driven + state-specific. Talk to a licensed Pennsylvania personal-injury attorney about your specific situation.*