Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

A property owner who knows or should know that criminal activity is foreseeable on their premises has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect people on that property. When they fail to do so — no security personnel, inadequate lighting, broken locks, no cameras — and a person is assaulted or injured as a result, a negligent security claim may arise. The claim runs against the property owner, not the criminal who committed the assault. Whether the owner is a private landlord, a business, or a public entity like BART determines how the claim proceeds.

Attorney Michael Rehm handles negligent security cases throughout Oakland and Alameda County.

Legal Framework for Negligent Security Claims

A negligent security claim is a premises liability claim. The property owner or controller owes a duty of ordinary care to people on the property under Civil Code § 1714 and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. For commercial property owners, the duty includes taking reasonable steps to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties.

The key element in a negligent security case is foreseeability. A property owner is not an insurer of every person on the property against every possible criminal act. The owner is liable when the criminal act that caused the injury was reasonably foreseeable given the history of similar incidents on or near the property, the nature of the business, the characteristics of the neighborhood, and any specific knowledge the owner had about security risks. Prior incidents of the same type of crime on the property are the strongest evidence of foreseeability — but foreseeability can also be established through crime statistics in the surrounding area, reports the owner received about prior criminal activity, or the general nature of the location and business.

Once foreseeability is established, the plaintiff must show the owner failed to take reasonable security precautions that would have reduced the risk. Whether security measures were adequate is a fact-specific question that typically requires expert testimony from a security consultant. Relevant factors include: whether security personnel were present and appropriately deployed; whether lighting was adequate to deter criminal activity; whether surveillance cameras were operational; whether access control measures were functioning; and whether the owner had implemented and maintained a security plan appropriate for the risk level.

Jury Instruction CACI 1005 governs negligent security claims against property owners. The elements are: the defendant owned, leased, or controlled the property; the defendant failed to use reasonable care to discover and address foreseeable criminal acts by third parties; the plaintiff was harmed; and the defendant's failure was a substantial factor in causing that harm.

BART and AC Transit Station Security

BART operates six Oakland stations and has faced recurring security issues including assaults, robberies, and negligent security claims at station facilities. BART is a public entity — the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District — and claims for injuries resulting from negligent security at BART stations require a government tort claim filed within six months of the incident. Government Code § 911.2. BART claims are submitted to: BART District Secretary, 2150 Webster Street, 10th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

AC Transit bus stops and facilities are similarly subject to the government claims requirement, with claims submitted to: AC Transit District Secretary, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

As public transit operators, both BART and AC Transit are common carriers subject to the highest degree of care for passenger safety under Civil Code § 2100. That elevated duty extends to the reasonable provision of security measures to protect passengers from foreseeable criminal acts.

Apartment Buildings and Commercial Properties

Landlords of residential property in Oakland are subject to the same foreseeability-based duty of care as commercial property owners. Oakland has a history of crime in certain residential areas that creates a documented foreseeability basis for security claims when a landlord fails to maintain adequate security in those areas. A landlord who has received prior complaints about criminal activity on the property, or who operates in a neighborhood with documented crime, and who fails to install basic security measures may be liable when a tenant or visitor is subsequently assaulted.

Damages

Negligent security damages include: medical expenses for treatment of assault injuries; lost earnings during recovery; future care costs if injuries are serious; and noneconomic damages including pain and suffering, emotional distress, and PTSD. Civil Code § 3333. Assaults causing serious physical injury — stabbings, shootings, severe beatings — can produce damages of the same magnitude as vehicle crash cases. Psychological trauma from a violent assault is a recognized category of damages under California law.

The statute of limitations for a negligent security claim on private property is two years from the date of the incident. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. For claims against BART or AC Transit, the six-month government claims deadline applies first.

Related Pages

• Oakland Personal Injury Attorney
• Oakland Premises Liability Attorney
• Oakland Slip and Fall Attorney
• Oakland Catastrophic Injury Attorney
• Oakland Wrongful Death Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles negligent security cases throughout Oakland and Alameda County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 to arrange 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.