Our firm is about people. That is our motto and that will always be our reality.
We do our best to get to know our clients, understand their situations, and get them the compensation they deserve.
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Without our team, we would’nt be able to provide our clients with anything close to the level of service they receive when they work with us.
The TorHoerman Law Team commits to the sincere belief that those injured by the misconduct of others, especially large corporate profit mongers, deserve justice for their injuries.
Our team is what has made TorHoerman Law a very special place since 2009.
Attorney Tor Hoerman, admitted to the Illinois State Bar Association since 1995 and The Missouri Bar since 2009, specializes nationally in mass tort litigations. Locally, Tor specializes in auto accidents and a wide variety of personal injury incidents occuring in Illinois and Missouri.
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy and clarity by the team of writers and attorneys at TorHoerman Law and is as accurate as possible. This content should not be taken as legal advice from an attorney. If you would like to learn more about our owner and experienced injury lawyer, Tor Hoerman, you can do so here.
TorHoerman Law does everything possible to make sure the information in this article is up to date and accurate. If you need specific legal advice about your case, contact us. This article should not be taken as advice from an attorney.
A negligent security lawsuit may allow victims and families to seek compensation after a violent crime occurs on property where safety risks were foreseeable, and reasonable security measures were not in place.
These cases often involve preventable harm at apartment complexes, hotels, parking areas, bars, shopping centers, and other properties where owners or managers failed to address known threats, which sometimes create conditions that poses a serious risk to personal safety and property, resulting in assault, robbery, shooting, etc.
TorHoerman Law reviews negligent security claims from people injured in these incidents and from families grieving a wrongful death.
A negligent security case begins with a simple question: did a property owner fail to provide reasonable security measures that could have reduced the risk of a foreseeable crime?
When a violent incident happens on someone else’s property, victims often face immediate medical needs, missed work, and lasting emotional harm.
A successful negligent security lawsuit focuses on what the owner knew or should have known about safety risks, and what steps were reasonable for that location.
The claim does not treat the owner as the criminal, it examines whether basic precautions were missing or ignored.
Evidence often includes prior incidents, lighting or access failures, camera outages, broken locks, and gaps in security procedures.
When those conditions align, the law may allow a victim to pursue financial recovery tied to the injury and its long-term impact.
That recovery can include costs like medical bills and wage loss, as well as damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
TorHoerman Law evaluates these cases with a close look at the property conditions, the risk history, and the records that show what happened before and after the incident.
If you have been injured or your loved one was tragically killed in a negligent security incident, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit and seek compensation.
Contact TorHoerman Law’s team of negligent security attorneys for a free consultation.
You can also use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify for a negligent security lawsuit.
Negligent security is a type of premises liability claim that arises when a violent or criminal act occurs on someone else’s property and the victim alleges the harm could have been prevented with reasonable safety precautions.
Under premises liability law, the focus is not on holding the property owner responsible for the criminal’s choices, it is on the property owner’s responsibility to address known risks and take reasonable steps to reduce them.
That duty can apply to both commercial property and private property, depending on why the victim was there and what the owner knew or should have known about the danger.
A property owner or manager may have a duty to provide adequate security measures when conditions on the property make crime foreseeable, and a failure to meet that duty can form the basis of liability.
Foreseeability often turns on prior incidents, repeated complaints, documented security failures, or patterns of criminal activity in or around the property.
When those warning signs exist, the law may require steps designed to prevent foreseeable crimes, not by guaranteeing safety, but by taking reasonable precautions for the circumstances.
What “reasonable security” looks like depends on the setting and the known risk. At an apartment complex, it may involve working locks, controlled access, functioning gates, and lighting in common areas.

At a bar, hotel, shopping center, or parking garage, it may involve surveillance coverage, patrols, controlled entry points, and responsive incident procedures.
In higher-risk locations, reasonable precautions may include trained security personnel, clear post orders, and documented monitoring practices, especially when the property advertises security or has a history of prior violence.
Negligent security claims often examine what the owner did before the incident, not just what happened during it.
Records like prior incident reports, calls for service, internal complaints, maintenance logs for lighting and locks, and camera policies can help show what risks were known and whether the response matched them.
If the evidence supports that the owner did not provide adequate security measures despite warning signs, the victim may have a viable claim for the harm that followed.
Liability in a negligent security case is not always obvious in the immediate aftermath of a violent or criminal incident.
These claims do not focus on the individual who committed the crime, they examine whether business and property owners failed to take reasonable steps to address known safety risks.
When a property owner’s failure to act contributes to a foreseeable crime, the law may allow responsibility to extend beyond the person who carried out the attack.
Negligent security lawsuits typically target the party that owned, controlled, managed, or operated the property at the time of the incident.
In some cases, that duty may also fall on a third party that assumed responsibility for security or safety operations.
Liability varies based on the type of property, how it was used, and who had authority over security decisions when the incident occurred.

Depending on the facts, liability may fall on:
After identifying the potentially responsible parties, a negligent security claim focuses on whether their actions or omissions created an unreasonable risk.
That analysis often looks at prior incidents, known safety complaints, staffing decisions, and whether basic security measures were missing or ineffective.
When the evidence shows a property owner’s failure to address foreseeable dangers, multiple parties may share liability for the harm that followed.
Negligent or inadequate security occurs when a property owner fails to take reasonable steps to address potential security risks that they knew or should have known about their property.
Reasonable steps vary based on location, crime statistics, the nature of the property, prior criminal incidents, and other circumstances.

This can include physical security failures, operational failures, environmental and visibility failures, and security technology failures. Negligent security can apply to both personal and public property.
Negligent security and premises liability both arise from a property owner’s duty to keep visitors safe upon entering the property.
These differ primarily in the type of harm involved.

In negligent security, the types of harm typically involved are criminal acts by third parties.
Premises liability cases address hazardous conditions such as broken stairs, poor lighting, or wet floors that lead to injuries suffered by visitors.
Property or business owners are not expected to prevent every crime.
They only have a duty to care when the risk of criminal conduct is foreseeable.
In a literal sense, foreseeability is the ability to reasonably anticipate that a particular type of harm may occur as a consequence of certain conditions or conduct.
Foreseeability is the starting point for determining how far a duty to protect against criminal acts extends.
But how does foreseeability become central to this type of personal injury lawsuit?
The answer is that if a reasonable person could have anticipated the risk of a criminal act, then they have a duty to prevent such an act, and if they fail and the act results in injury, then this constitutes a breach of that duty, and the property owner may be held liable.

Negligent security becomes a legal claim when four elements of negligence are established:
To prove a negligent security claim, it’s not sufficient that the crime occurred at that location, you need to show that the owner should have anticipated it.
It’s not necessary that the property owner should have known of the exact type of crime that was committed, as long as reasonably similar criminal conduct was foreseeable.
Foreseeability is the legal concept that connects a dangerous condition to a duty to act, and it often determines whether property and business owners can be held responsible for harm caused by third-party criminal conduct.
When the risk is foreseeable and reasonable precautions are missing, the law may treat certain violent acts as preventable crimes rather than unavoidable events.

Foreseeability is commonly determined by looking at:
This analysis helps show whether the incident was due to negligent security, not just bad luck.
It also frames what reasonable steps could have reduced the risk, such as working locks, installing adequate lighting, controlled entry, functional cameras, or trained staff on-site.
If the evidence supports that similar crimes were likely and the owner failed to respond, foreseeability becomes a foundation for proving liability.
Negligent security occurs when a crime happens on a property and the conditions or safety practices were not reasonable for the known risk.
These incidents often involve places where people reasonably expect basic protections, like controlled access, functioning locks, lighting, and active monitoring.
When those protections fail, crime victims can be left exposed to attacks that could have been deterred or interrupted.
The harm is not always minor, and many cases involve a serious injury that changes a person’s health, employment, and daily life.
In the most severe situations, the outcome can be death, leaving families to pursue wrongful death claims tied to the same security failures.
These cases come up in both residential and public-facing spaces, including high-traffic areas like a parking lot.

Common negligent security incidents include:
The key issue is whether the property conditions and security decisions made the crime more likely or easier to carry out.
Evidence often focuses on what protections were missing, what had failed, and what the owner knew before the incident occurred.
When those facts line up, the claim connects the security breakdown to the harm the victim suffered.
Negligent security cases often involve more severe harm than many other incidents because the attack may continue longer when there is no effective deterrent or rapid response.
A lack of proper security and surveillance can increase the time that passes before anyone intervenes or calls for help, which can lead to worse outcomes.
Victims may face immediate physical pain, followed by a long recovery that includes surgeries, therapy, and permanent limitations.
Many people also experience emotional trauma after a violent event, including fear, sleep disruption, and symptoms consistent with PTSD.
These injuries can affect work, relationships, and basic daily routines for months or years.

Common injuries in negligent security cases include:
Negligent security claims often turn on whether a property owner had warning signs and failed to respond with reasonable safety steps.
The examples below show how courts and juries analyze foreseeability, security failures, and causation in real cases.
Outcomes depend on facts and jurisdiction, but these cases illustrate what can support liability and significant damages awards.

Examples of successful negligent security lawsuits include:
After a negligent security incident, the priority is your safety and your medical care, then preserving the evidence that shows what happened and why it was preventable.
Many properties rely on security cameras and digital entry systems that overwrite or delete data quickly, so acting early matters.
A lawyer can step in to send preservation letters, request incident records, identify witnesses, and document unsafe conditions while they still exist.
A law firm also helps connect the harm to clear, provable losses like medical expenses, time missed from work, and the long-term impact of physical pain and trauma, then builds the case for financial compensation.
If the facts point to a negligent property owner who failed to take reasonable safety measures like working locks, adequate lighting, controlled access, or active monitoring, an attorney can explain your legal options and move the claim forward.

Typical steps in negligent security litigation include:
Taking action early helps preserve the records that often decide these cases.
It also gives you space to focus on recovery while the legal work moves forward.
The right next step is usually a confidential consultation so you understand the timeline, the evidence that matters, and the strongest path based on the facts.
You can have the strongest negligent security claim against the defendant, but if it is not filed within the permitted time given by law, there are high chances it might fail.
Each state has given a statute of limitations which generally varies between 1 and 6 years, with some exceptions like the discovery rule.
It’s highly important to contact an experienced negligent security claim to know if any exceptions apply to your case.
If you intend to file a negligent security claim against a governmental entity, you will likely have a separate statute of limitations to file a notice of claim, which has a typical deadline of 90 days, but might vary from state to state.

After notice, you have 1–2 years to file the lawsuit, so it is critical to meet both deadlines.
If you have lost your loved ones because of negligent security, it will be considered a wrongful death case, and the limitation period could be different from the laws on negligent security cases.
The statute of limitations in wrongful death cases typically proceed from the date of the death rather than the initial date of injury.
The steps you take after a negligent security incident can significantly influence your legal position in front of insurance companies and courts.
It’s important that you act quickly and take the following steps to build a strong legal claim against the negligent party.

The first non-negotiable step is to seek medical attention immediately.
Even if you feel just fine, you should consult a doctor, as internal injuries like vertebral artery dissection, internal vascular tears, internal hemorrhage with slow bleed, spinal cord contusion, etc., do not surface immediately at the time of the accident. Early medical check-ups help you recover faster and provide documentary evidence that is useful when filing a negligent security claim.
In case of emergency, call 911, or contact local law enforcement.
You should provide a detailed description of events, date, time, and location, injuries suffered, etc.
This information is documented in incident and police reports, and it is important not to exaggerate or speculate.
Next, inform the property owner/manager by sending a formal written notice that includes the key details of the accident.
Completing these steps creates a paper trail of all communication surrounding the incident.
Visual evidence can capture conditions that may change or be repaired shortly after a crime occurs.
Photos and videos help document what the property looked like at the time of the incident and can support claims that basic safety precautions were missing or ineffective.
If possible, capture wide shots and close-ups, and note the date and time the images were taken.
Take photos and videos of:
Witness information can play a critical role in a negligent security claim, especially when surveillance footage is limited or missing.
Anyone who saw the incident, the conditions beforehand, or suspicious activity leading up to the crime may have useful testimony.
This includes other tenants, guests, employees, or bystanders who were present at or near the location.
Gathering names, contact details, and brief statements as soon as possible helps preserve accurate accounts before memories fade.
A lawyer can later follow up to obtain formal statements and compare witness accounts with physical evidence and property records.
After a negligent security incident, do not apologize or make statements that suggest you were at fault, even if you feel pressured in the moment.
Property staff, security, or insurance representatives may try to frame what happened as your responsibility, but those early comments can be used later to dispute your claim.
As the injured party, keep your statements limited to basic facts and focus on getting medical care and reporting the incident.
Do not sign waivers, releases, incident summaries, or settlement paperwork without legal review, even if the document is presented as routine.
A lawyer can evaluate whether you have a viable claim, whether the owner had a legal duty to provide reasonable safety measures, and whether any document attempts to shift responsibility away from the property.
After a negligent security incident, speaking with a lawyer early can protect your rights and preserve critical evidence.
A personal injury attorney with a proven track record can evaluate whether the property owner failed to address foreseeable risks and explain how liability may apply.
Early legal involvement helps prevent the loss of surveillance footage, incident reports, and maintenance records that often disappear within days or weeks.
An attorney can also handle communications with property owners and insurers, so you are not pressured into statements or early settlements.
The goal is to build a case grounded in evidence, not assumptions, and to document the full scope of your injuries and losses.
With proper legal guidance, victims may be able to recover compensation tied to medical care, lost income, and the lasting impact of the incident.
TorHoerman Law investigates negligent security incidents by identifying what happened, what the property knew before it happened, and what safety steps were missing when the risk became foreseeable.
These cases often come down to records that disappear quickly, including surveillance footage, incident reports, maintenance logs, and security policies, so early action matters.

If a negligent property owner failed to take reasonable measures and that failure contributed to an attack, TorHoerman Law can evaluate the facts, explain the legal options, and pursue financial compensation tied to medical expenses, lost income, and the long-term impact of the harm.
Contact us today for a confidential consultation to discuss what happened and what evidence may support a negligent security claim.
You can also use the chat feature on this page to find out if you qualify for a negligent security lawsuit.
In a negligent security lawsuit, the defendant is typically the party that owned, controlled, or was responsible for security at the property where the crime occurred.
These cases do not focus on the person who committed the criminal act, but on whether another party failed to address known safety risks.
Liability depends on who had authority over maintenance, access control, lighting, staffing, and security policies at the time of the incident.
In some cases, more than one defendant may be named if multiple parties shared responsibility for safety decisions.
Identifying the correct defendant requires reviewing ownership records, management contracts, and security agreements.
Common defendants in negligent security lawsuits include:
Even if the attacker was never caught or prosecuted, this doesn’t affect your negligent security claim.
Your claim is against the property owner, and if they failed in their duty to provide adequate security and that failure contributed to a foreseeable criminal act, you may still have the right to pursue compensation.
Negligent security cases focus on property conditions, prior incidents, and safety decisions, not on identifying or convicting the person who committed the crime.
As long as the evidence supports that the risk was known or should have been known, the absence of a criminal arrest does not bar a civil claim.
Yes, you may be able to sue an apartment complex or hotel for inadequate security depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.
When you live in an apartment complex or stay in a hotel, there’s a reasonable expectation of security on the property you are living in, and if management fails to take reasonable steps that lead to foreseeable harm, a negligent security claim may be possible.
These cases often focus on issues like broken locks, poor lighting, unsecured access points, or ignored reports of prior criminal activity.
Liability depends on what the property knew or should have known and whether appropriate safety measures were missing or not enforced.
A negligent security claim rises or falls on evidence of foreseeability, breach, and causation.
The most important categories of evidence include:
You have to file your negligent security claim within 1 to 6 years from the date of incident, depending on the state.
This timeline can vary in case you are filing a negligent security case against the government or local authorities with an additional statute of limitation for sending a notice of claim.
The absence of footage does not prevent a negligent security claim, even if cameras were installed on the property.
Non-functioning cameras, missing recordings, or systems that were not monitored can themselves be evidence of a failure to provide reasonable security.
In some cases, the presence of cameras or alarm systems may have created a false sense of security if the property advertised surveillance but failed to maintain or use it properly.
Liability can be supported through other evidence, such as witness testimony, maintenance records, incident reports, prior criminal activity, and proof that the systems were broken, disabled, or ignored.
A lawyer can use these records to show that the security failures existed before the incident and contributed to the harm.
Liability in a negligent security case can extend beyond the property owner when another party controlled security decisions or had a duty to address safety risks on the premises.
The key question is who had authority over staffing, repairs, access control, and security policies at the time of the incident.
In many cases, more than one defendant may be responsible.
Liable parties could include:
Damages in a negligent security case are meant to compensate you for the harm and losses caused by the incident.
These claims often include the cost of medical care, follow-up treatment, and any ongoing rehabilitation tied to the injuries.
You may also be able to recover lost wages if your injuries keep you from working, along with loss of future earning capacity when the harm affects your ability to earn long term.
Non-economic damages can cover the physical and psychological impact of the event, including pain and suffering and emotional distress.
In cases involving extreme negligence, punitive damages may be available under state law.
Damages in negligent security cases may include:
Owner & Attorney - TorHoerman Law
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
At TorHoerman Law, we believe that if we continue to focus on the people that we represent, and continue to be true to the people that we are – justice will always be served.
Do you believe you’re entitled to compensation?
Use our Instant Case Evaluator to find out in as little as 60 seconds!
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $20 Million for our client after they suffered a Toxic Tort Injury due to chemical exposure.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $103.8 Million for our client after they suffered a COX-2 Inhibitors Injury.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $4 Million for our client after they suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury while at daycare.
In this case, we were able to successfully recover $2.8 Million for our client after they suffered an injury due to a Defective Heart Device.
Here, at TorHoerman Law, we’re committed to helping victims get the justice they deserve.
Since 2009, we have successfully collected over $4 Billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of injured individuals.
Would you like our help?
Average Negligent Security Settlements
The Legal Process for Negligent Security Lawsuits
What Types of Cases Does a Negligent Security Attorney Handle?
What is Negligent Security?