Modesto Negligent Security Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents people who were assaulted, robbed, or otherwise injured due to inadequate security on commercial or residential property throughout Modesto and Stanislaus County. When a property owner fails to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from foreseeable criminal acts, and that failure causes injury, California premises liability law provides a basis for a civil claim against the property owner. This page explains the legal framework that governs negligent security claims and the standards that apply in cases filed in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

The Legal Framework for Negligent Security Claims

California Civil Code section 1714(a) imposes a general duty of ordinary care on every person in the management of their property. For a property owner or operator, that duty extends to taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to people who are lawfully on the premises — including harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties.

The California Supreme Court addressed the scope of this duty in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666. The court held that a property owner's duty to take affirmative action to control the criminal acts of third parties depends on foreseeability — specifically, whether prior similar incidents on or near the property gave the owner actual or constructive notice that the risk of criminal activity was sufficiently high to require a response. Foreseeability is the critical threshold question in every negligent security case.

In Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, the Supreme Court applied this analysis to underground parking garages, holding that the owner's knowledge of prior criminal incidents in the garage was sufficient to trigger a duty to implement security measures. The court emphasized that the nature and location of the property, the history of prior incidents, and the demographic of the surrounding area are all relevant to the foreseeability analysis.

In Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, the court addressed causation in the apartment complex context, holding that a plaintiff must show that the defendant's failure to provide adequate security was a substantial factor in causing the injury — not merely that security measures might have made the crime less likely.

Evidence of Foreseeability

Establishing foreseeability in a negligent security case typically requires evidence of prior criminal incidents at or near the property. This evidence may come from the property owner's own incident reports, calls for service to the Modesto Police Department at or near the address, crime statistics for the surrounding area, and the testimony of security consultants. A property owner who was aware of prior assaults, robberies, or other violent incidents on the property and took no steps to address the risk is in a materially different position than an owner who had no prior notice of criminal activity.

The type of security measures a reasonable property owner should have implemented depends on the facts: adequate lighting in parking areas, functioning surveillance cameras, security personnel during high-risk hours, controlled access points, working locks and gates, and clear sight lines that do not provide cover for criminal activity. A security expert retained to evaluate the property can assess what a reasonable owner should have done given the known risk.

Types of Properties and Settings

Negligent security claims arise in a variety of settings throughout Modesto and Stanislaus County. Apartment complex assaults are among the most common — landlords have a duty to maintain reasonably secure common areas, stairwells, laundry facilities, and parking structures when they know or should know that criminal activity is a foreseeable risk. Hotel and motel parking lot assaults, robberies at convenience stores and gas stations during late-night hours, assaults at bars and nightclubs where violence has occurred before, and attacks in shopping center parking garages are all contexts where the foreseeability analysis applies.

The Modesto area's commercial corridors along McHenry Avenue, Tully Road, and the Carpenter Road corridor, as well as certain apartment complexes near downtown, have documented histories of criminal incidents relevant to the foreseeability inquiry.

Visitor Status and the Duty of Care

Under California premises liability law, the duty a property owner owes depends on the visitor's status. Invitees — customers, tenants, and others present for a business purpose — are owed the highest duty of care. Licensees are owed a duty to warn of known dangers. Trespassers are generally owed only a duty not to willfully injure them, with exceptions for discovered trespassers and child trespassers. Most negligent security claimants are invitees or tenants, to whom the owner owes the full duty of reasonable care under Civil Code section 1714(a).

Damages

Civil Code section 3333 provides that the measure of damages for a tort is the amount that will compensate for all detriment proximately caused by the negligent conduct. Civil Code section 3281 confirms that every person who suffers detriment from an unlawful act is entitled to compensation. Civil Code section 3283 extends that entitlement to future damages that are certain to result.

Compensable damages in a negligent security case typically include medical expenses for physical injuries sustained in the attack, past and future lost earnings, and non-economic damages for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and psychological trauma. Assault and violent crime victims commonly experience post-traumatic stress and lasting psychological harm that is fully compensable as part of the damages claim. Where the property owner's conduct involved conscious disregard of a known risk of criminal activity, Civil Code section 3294 may permit an award of punitive damages.

Filing Deadlines

California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Missing this deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit. Tolling doctrines may apply depending on the facts. If the property where the assault occurred was owned or operated by a government entity, a government tort claim under Government Code section 911.2 must be filed within six months of the incident, and Government Code section 945.6 requires a lawsuit to be filed within six months after the claim is rejected. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm promptly to assess the timeline in your case.

Stanislaus County Superior Court

Negligent security lawsuits filed on behalf of Modesto and Stanislaus County residents are filed in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, City Towers Building, 801 10th Street, Modesto, CA 95354. The court has 21 judges and three commissioners. Civil cases are directly assigned to a single judicial officer for all purposes, including trial. Represented parties are subject to mandatory electronic filing. All general civil cases are required to participate in a mandatory settlement conference approximately 15 days before trial. Stanislaus County Superior Court judicial statistics are available through the California Judicial Council court statistics portal.

Representation on a Contingency Fee Basis

Attorney Michael Rehm handles negligent security cases throughout Modesto and Stanislaus County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.