Florida Negligent Security Claims: What the 2023 Statutes Changed for Property Owners and Injured Visitors

Sep 4

7 min read

A negligent-security claim arises when a person lawfully on property is injured by a third party’s criminal act and alleges that the owner, operator, lessor, or manager failed to take reasonable security measures. These cases are not based on strict liability. The occurrence of a crime does not, by itself, establish that the property owner is legally responsible.

The analysis may involve control of the premises, foreseeability, notice, the reasonableness of security measures, causation, and damages. Florida’s 2023 tort legislation also added two statutes that materially affect the framework: section 768.0701 requires allocation of fault among all contributing persons, and section 768.0706 creates a presumption against liability for certain multifamily properties that substantially implement specified measures.

Both property owners and injured visitors should understand what those statutes do—and what they do not do.

The Underlying Claim Still Requires Proof of Negligence

A negligent-security plaintiff generally must establish a duty, breach, legal causation, and damages. The duty question often turns on the plaintiff’s status on the property, the defendant’s possession or control, and whether the criminal conduct was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.

Foreseeability is rarely resolved by one fact. Relevant evidence may include prior crimes or disturbances, calls for service, complaints from tenants or customers, incident reports, security assessments, lighting conditions, broken gates or locks, camera coverage, staffing, property design, and the nature of the business or location.

The number of prior incidents is important, but raw numbers can be misleading. The type, timing, location, similarity, and known circumstances of prior events may matter. A report involving conduct far from the location or under materially different conditions may have less significance than a recent event at the same access point. Conversely, the absence of a formally reported crime does not necessarily resolve whether management knew of recurring threats, broken security features, or escalating complaints.

The reasonableness of security measures also depends on context. A neighborhood retail store, parking garage, hotel, apartment complex, office building, and entertainment venue present different uses, hours, populations, and practical safeguards.

Section 768.0701 Requires the Factfinder to Consider All Contributors

Florida Statutes section 768.0701 applies to an action against an owner, lessor, operator, or manager of commercial or real property brought by a person lawfully on the property who was injured by a third party’s criminal act. It directs the trier of fact to consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury. Fla. Stat. § 768.0701 (2026).

The provision means that the criminal actor’s conduct cannot be omitted from the fault analysis merely because intentional torts are ordinarily treated differently under section 768.81. Depending on the evidence and verdict, fault may be allocated among the criminal actor, property defendants, the claimant, and other responsible persons.

Allocation is not the same as automatic immunity. A property defendant may still be found negligent and assigned a percentage of fault. The statute changes how responsibility is considered; it does not eliminate the plaintiff’s ability to prove that deficient security contributed to the injury.

From a litigation perspective, the identity and conduct of the criminal actor may therefore become central even when that person is absent, unknown, or judgment-proof. Evidence concerning how the crime occurred, what the actor observed, how access was obtained, and whether a security measure would have changed the outcome may affect both liability and apportionment.

Florida’s Comparative-Fault Bar May Increase the Stakes

In negligence actions governed by section 768.81, contributory fault generally reduces damages in proportion to the claimant’s percentage of fault. A claimant found more than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover damages under subsection (6), subject to statutory exceptions. Fla. Stat. § 768.81(2), (6) (2026).

A negligent-security defense may argue that the claimant ignored warnings, entered a restricted area, disabled a lock, invited the assailant, or otherwise contributed to the circumstances. Those allegations must be supported by evidence and distinguished from the intentional wrongdoing of the criminal actor. The fact that someone became a crime victim does not itself establish comparative fault.

Because a one-point change around the statutory threshold can determine whether recovery is reduced or barred, parties should investigate the allocation issues early rather than treating them as an afterthought to the security evidence.

Section 768.0706 Creates a Presumption for Qualifying Multifamily Properties

Section 768.0706 applies to a “multifamily residential property,” defined as a residential building or group of residential buildings—such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums—consisting of at least five dwelling units on a particular parcel. Fla. Stat. § 768.0706(1)(b) (2026).

The owner or principal operator receives a presumption against liability in connection with third-party criminal acts on the premises if it substantially implements the security measures identified by the statute. The presumption is not automatic because the property has cameras or gates. The owner or operator bears the burden of proving substantial implementation. Id. § 768.0706(2)–(3).

The statute identifies physical measures that include:

entry-and-exit cameras that record and retain retrievable footage for at least thirty days;
parking-lot lighting meeting a specified average intensity from dusk to dawn;
lighting in walkways, laundry rooms, common areas, and porches;
at least a one-inch deadbolt on each dwelling-unit door;
locking devices on windows, exterior sliding doors, and other noncommunity doors;
locked gates with key or fob access around pool-fence areas; and
a peephole or door viewer on a dwelling-unit door that lacks an appropriate window.

The details matter. A property may have a camera system but fail to retain footage. It may have lights that exist on paper but are not functioning or do not meet the specified intensity. A gate may be installed but routinely left open. “Substantial implementation” should therefore be evaluated through records and actual conditions, not a marketing description.

The Presumption Also Requires Assessment and Training

The physical measures are only part of section 768.0706. By January 1, 2025, the owner or principal operator was required to have a crime-prevention-through-environmental-design assessment for the property that is no more than three years old. The assessment must be performed by a qualifying law-enforcement agency or a designated Florida Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Practitioner. The property must remain in substantial compliance with the assessment. Fla. Stat. § 768.0706(2)(b) (2026).

The statute also requires proper crime-deterrence and safety training for employees. Employees hired after January 1, 2025, must receive the training within sixty days after hire. The curriculum must address the statutory security principles and be reviewed at least every three years and updated as necessary. Id. § 768.0706(2)(c).

A property owner seeking the presumption should be able to produce the assessment, proof of the assessor’s qualification, training materials, attendance records, maintenance documentation, camera-retention information, lighting measurements, and evidence of continuing compliance. A one-time implementation project that is not maintained may not support the same showing years later.

The Statute Does Not Create a New Claim or Absolute Immunity

Section 768.0706 expressly states that it does not establish a private cause of action. Id. § 768.0706(5). A claimant therefore cannot sue merely because one listed measure was absent or defective. The claimant must rely on an otherwise recognized legal theory and prove its elements.

The statute also creates a presumption against liability, not categorical immunity. The effect of the presumption, the evidence offered to invoke or rebut it, and the interaction with other liability issues depend on the case. Properties that do not qualify for the presumption are not automatically negligent; they remain subject to the ordinary analysis. Properties that qualify are not excused from unrelated duties or from maintaining the measures on which they rely.

That distinction is important for both sides. A checklist is evidence, but it is not the entire case.

Evidence Preservation Should Begin Immediately

Negligent-security evidence is unusually vulnerable to loss. Camera systems may overwrite footage after thirty days or less. Lights and locks may be repaired. Access-control logs may be purged. Employees may leave. Incident conditions may change before an investigator arrives.

An injured person or counsel may need to request preservation of surveillance footage, access logs, maintenance records, incident reports, prior complaints, security contracts, staffing schedules, training materials, assessments, photographs, communications, and calls for service. Medical records and witness identities also should be preserved.

Property owners should suspend routine deletion once litigation is reasonably anticipated and coordinate the response across management, security vendors, insurers, information-technology providers, and counsel. Selective preservation creates risk. If footage from the incident exists, related camera views and system logs may be important to interpreting it.

Property Owners Should Treat the Statutory Measures as an Operating Program

The statutory presumption is strongest when the property’s documents and actual operations match. Owners should conduct periodic inspections, test cameras and retention, verify lighting, track repairs, train new employees on time, renew the assessment before it becomes older than three years, and document corrective action.

Security contracts should define responsibility for equipment, monitoring, maintenance, incident escalation, and retention. Lease and management agreements should identify who controls common areas and who has authority to repair gates, lights, and locks. A property owner cannot assume a third-party vendor will create the evidence needed to establish statutory compliance unless the contract and workflow require it.

Employees also need a usable reporting channel. Complaints about broken doors, recurring trespass, threats, or suspicious activity should not remain in personal text messages or informal conversations.

Deadlines and Claim-Specific Rules Require Prompt Review

Florida generally provides a two-year limitations period for an action founded on negligence. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(a) (2026). The correct deadline may depend on accrual, defendant identity, governmental involvement, death, minority, or another claim-specific rule. Waiting also can impair the case long before the limitations period expires because the most useful security evidence may disappear quickly.

A prompt assessment should identify the responsible entities, property-control relationships, insurance policies, potential nonparties, applicable statutes, and immediate preservation needs.

Equity Legal, PLLC evaluates Florida premises-liability and negligent-security matters, including evidence preservation, comparative fault, statutory security measures, and damages. Contact the firm at info@equitylegalfirm.com or request a confidential consultation to discuss a matter.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.