Premises Liability Practice

Negligent Security Lawyers

Edelstein Law evaluates serious negligent-security claims after assaults, robberies, shootings, and other attacks at apartment properties, businesses, parking areas, hotels, entertainment venues, and other locations across Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The review separates the criminal act from the property-based negligence questions: who controlled the premises, what danger was reasonably foreseeable, what protective measures were available, and whether an alleged security failure contributed to the harm.

Request a confidential reviewExplore the parent practice
Dome security camera in a modern transportation setting, illustrating surveillance evidence in a negligent-security investigation.
Practice AreaNegligent Security

Control · foreseeability · reasonable care

A crime on someone else’s property does not automatically prove negligent security

The person who committed an assault or other crime may bear direct responsibility. A negligent-security claim asks a separate question: whether an owner, occupier, manager, security provider, or other party with relevant control owed and breached a duty to take reasonable protective measures under the circumstances.

Not every violent event was reasonably predictable, and no security measure can prevent every crime. A claim-specific review examines the relationship between the parties, possession and control, prior incidents and warnings, the character and location of the property, security planning and implementation, the sequence of the event, causation, and supported injuries and losses.

Interactive security review

How a negligent-security claim is evaluated

Select a review point to see the facts and records that may matter. The occurrence of a crime, the absence of a guard or camera, or a prior incident does not by itself decide duty, breach, causation, or liability.

Review point 01

Ownership, possession, management, and security responsibility

A deed alone may not identify every responsible entity. The review maps who possessed, operated, managed, leased, maintained, monitored, or contracted to secure the relevant area and what each party could reasonably control.

  • Deeds, leases, management agreements, and operating records
  • Security, parking, maintenance, and vendor contracts
  • Control of entrances, lighting, locks, cameras, and staffing
  • Public-versus-private property and immunity analysis
Review point 02

Prior events, warnings, property context, and recognizable risk

Foreseeability is fact- and jurisdiction-specific. Prior crimes, calls for service, complaints, threats, access problems, the nature and location of the property, operating hours, and other circumstances may be relevant, but similarity, timing, reliability, and legal significance must be evaluated carefully.

  • Prior incident, complaint, and police-call history
  • Threats, warnings, trespassing, and access-control problems
  • Property type, location, hours, traffic, and surrounding conditions
  • Notice to owners, managers, staff, tenants, or security providers
Review point 03

Security planning, implementation, warnings, and response

There is no universal checklist that makes every property secure. The review compares the identified risk with available measures, written plans, staffing, training, lighting, locks, access systems, cameras, patrols, warnings, and whether adopted safeguards were maintained and followed.

  • Risk assessments, security plans, budgets, and post orders
  • Lighting, locks, gates, alarms, cameras, and access systems
  • Guard staffing, patrols, training, supervision, and dispatch
  • Warnings, incident escalation, emergency response, and repairs
Review point 04

The event sequence, location, response, and missing evidence

The physical route, access point, timing, witness observations, emergency calls, video coverage, response time, and later changes can clarify how the event occurred. Evidence gaps must be investigated rather than filled with assumptions.

  • 911, dispatch, incident, and emergency-response records
  • Original video, photographs, access logs, and device records
  • Witness identities and contemporaneous communications
  • Scene layout, sight lines, lighting, entrances, and exit routes
Review point 05

Medical causation, trauma, comparative fault, and supported losses

A civil claim must connect the alleged security failure to the event and resulting harm. Physical injuries, psychological injuries, treatment, work effects, safety-related expenses, future needs, and defenses require sensitive, individual review supported by admissible evidence.

  • Emergency, hospital, specialty, counseling, and rehabilitation records
  • Physical and psychological causation analysis
  • Wage, expense, safety, relocation, and future-care documentation
  • Comparative-fault, intervening-cause, and foreseeability defenses

Edelstein Law’s review process

What Edelstein Law examines in a negligent-security review

The firm can assess a confidential inquiry without treating every assault as a property claim. The review identifies the potentially responsible entities, preserves time-sensitive evidence, tests foreseeability and reasonable-care theories, and connects any alleged breach to supported harm.

Protect safety and preserve original evidence

Address immediate safety and medical needs first, then preserve original photographs, video, messages, clothing, location information, witness contacts, and event details without editing files or pressuring an injured person to repeat unnecessary details.

Identify control and security roles

Examine ownership, leases, management, operations, parking, security contracts, vendors, public-entity involvement, and the ability of each party to control the relevant location or protective measure.

Test foreseeability and reasonable measures

Compare prior incidents, complaints, calls, threats, property conditions, access problems, adopted plans, staffing, training, equipment, maintenance, warnings, and response against the risk known or reasonably recognizable at the time.

Connect the alleged failure to the harm

Evaluate event reconstruction, medical and psychological causation, treatment, work and daily-life effects, future needs, supported losses, comparative fault, superseding-cause arguments, and other claim-specific defenses.

Records · timing · preservation

Evidence that can clarify foreseeability, security, causation, and harm

Surveillance, access data, electronic records, and witness memories may be lost through routine retention or change. Prompt, lawful preservation can protect original material while counsel identifies records held by property controllers, security companies, vendors, law enforcement, insurers, medical providers, and other entities.

01 · Event

911, dispatch, incident, and witness records

Emergency calls, dispatch timing, incident reports, witness identities, contemporaneous messages, receipts, visit records, and exact location and time information.

02 · Digital

Video, access, alarm, and communication data

Original surveillance, camera maps, access-control logs, key or badge records, alarms, guard communications, device data, retention policies, and unedited files with metadata.

03 · Notice

Prior incidents, complaints, calls, and warnings

Prior reports, police calls, tenant or patron complaints, trespass notices, threats, work orders, emails, meeting records, risk assessments, and corrective-action history.

04 · Security

Plans, staffing, patrols, equipment, and training

Security plans, post orders, schedules, time records, patrol logs, training, supervision, audits, budgets, camera and lighting maintenance, access procedures, and emergency protocols.

05 · Control

Ownership, leases, contracts, and operational authority

Deeds, leases, management and security agreements, vendor scopes, insurance information, staffing responsibility, property maps, shared-area rules, and public-property records.

06 · Harm

Medical, psychological, work, and loss documentation

Emergency and follow-up care, diagnoses, counseling, rehabilitation, prior medical history, expenses, wage loss, safety-related costs, future needs, functional effects, and other supported losses.

One page · state-specific analysis

Pennsylvania and New Jersey claims require individual review

A combined Pennsylvania and New Jersey page avoids duplicative location pages while preserving meaningful state-specific analysis. Duty, foreseeability, possession or control, reasonable measures, causation, comparative negligence, public-property procedure, and available defendants depend on the facts.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania analysis is fact-specific. The existence and scope of a duty can depend on the parties’ relationship, possession or control, an agreement or undertaking, affirmative conduct, recognizable risk, and the ability to take reasonable precautions. Third-party crime alone does not automatically establish a property controller’s liability.

  • The relationship, undertaking, alleged security failure, and scope of the recognizable risk must be identified precisely.
  • Comparative negligence is governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102 and requires claim-specific analysis.
  • Landlords, tenants, managers, security contractors, public entities, and other parties can present different duties and defenses.

New Jersey

New Jersey’s model civil charge uses a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis when reasonably foreseeable criminal activity at business premises is disputed. Prior incidents, the property’s character and location, security conditions, and surrounding circumstances may be considered; the analysis remains fact-specific and does not make an owner an insurer of safety.

  • Prior criminal acts need not be identical, but their timing, location, similarity, and context still matter.
  • Comparative negligence is governed by N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1 and must be evaluated from the full record.
  • Residential, commercial, contractual, public-property, and security-provider relationships can change the duty and procedure.

Do not rely on a website to calculate a filing deadline. Exceptions, accrual, minority, death, public-entity involvement, and other facts may change the analysis.

Clear answers · individual facts

Frequently asked questions

Does an assault or other crime on a property automatically mean the owner was negligent?
No. Criminal conduct alone does not automatically establish negligent security. A legal review examines whether a potentially responsible party had relevant possession or control, owed a duty under the circumstances, knew or had reason to know of a recognizable danger, had a reasonable opportunity to act, failed to use reasonable measures, and caused or contributed to the documented harm.
What evidence may show that criminal activity was reasonably foreseeable?
Evidence may include prior incidents, police calls, complaints, threats, trespassing, access problems, the property’s type and location, operating hours, surrounding conditions, communications, risk assessments, and notice to owners, managers, tenants, staff, or security providers. The governing standard and weight of each fact differ by jurisdiction and claim.
Does negligent security require a missing guard or surveillance camera?
No single security feature decides the claim. The question is whether the measures used or omitted were reasonable under the circumstances and whether an alleged failure contributed to the event. Lighting, locks, access control, cameras, patrols, staffing, warnings, maintenance, training, and emergency response may be relevant depending on the identified risk.
What should be preserved after a serious attack on someone else’s property?
Safety and medical care come first. When it is safe, preserve original photographs and video, messages, clothing and personal items, receipts or visit records, witness information, police or incident numbers, medical records, expenses, and the exact location and time. Do not edit original files or surrender physical items without documenting them and obtaining claim-specific advice.
Can a negligent-security claim be reviewed without a prior identical incident?
Yes. The absence of a prior identical event does not automatically end every inquiry, and a prior event does not automatically establish liability. Foreseeability may depend on the total circumstances, including prior activity of differing severity, property context, warnings, threats, access problems, and other recognizable risks. Pennsylvania and New Jersey apply fact-specific legal standards.

Continue your research

Parent practice areaPremises LiabilityExplore unsafe-property claims →Jurist Journal resourceAssaulted on Someone Else’s PropertyRead about negligent-security evidence →Related practice areaSexual Abuse and AssaultExplore survivor advocacy →