Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents negligent security victims throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County. When a person is assaulted, robbed, or otherwise harmed on another's property because the property owner failed to provide adequate security, that owner may bear civil liability for the resulting injuries. Negligent security is a subset of premises liability — the theory that a property owner's failure to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal conduct makes the owner legally responsible for harm that follows.

The Legal Framework

Civil Code § 1714(a) imposes a duty of ordinary care on every person in the management of their property. In a negligent security case, the question is whether the property owner knew or should have known that criminal activity was a foreseeable risk on the premises and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Foreseeability is the central inquiry — courts look at prior criminal incidents on or near the property, the nature of the business and its clientele, the time of day when the incident occurred, and the overall security environment of the location.

California courts have held that a landowner's duty to protect against criminal conduct by third parties turns on whether the criminal act was reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances — not whether the specific attacker or the specific act was anticipated. A bar that has had multiple prior assaults in its parking lot, an apartment complex in an area with documented criminal activity, or a parking garage that has received repeated reports of theft and robbery — each of these presents a context in which criminal conduct is foreseeable and reasonable precautions are required.

Common Negligent Security Locations in San Jose

Negligent security claims in San Jose arise across a range of locations. The downtown entertainment district — particularly around San Pedro Square, the South First Area, and the SAP Center corridor — concentrates large numbers of people late at night in areas where alcohol is involved. Parking garages serving downtown businesses, Santana Row, and tech campuses are frequent sites of robbery and assault where lighting, camera coverage, and security patrol are inadequate. Apartment complexes throughout the city may face liability where they fail to maintain secured entry points, functional lighting, and working locks on common area doors despite known crime in the complex or surrounding area.

What Constitutes Adequate Security

Whether a property owner provided adequate security is determined by what a reasonable owner in the same circumstances would have done. Relevant factors include the presence or absence of security personnel, the adequacy of lighting in parking areas and walkways, the functionality of access control systems, the presence and coverage of surveillance cameras, the owner's response to prior incidents and complaints, and whether the owner conducted a security assessment. The standard is not perfect security — it is reasonable care given the foreseeable risks.

Third-Party Criminal Acts and Causation

A recurring defense in negligent security cases is that the criminal act of a third party breaks the chain of causation between the owner's negligence and the plaintiff's injury. California law rejects this argument where the criminal act was foreseeable. The owner who creates or fails to address conditions that make criminal conduct more likely cannot escape liability by pointing to the criminal as the proximate cause of the harm. Both the criminal's act and the owner's negligence may be substantial contributing causes under CACI No. 430.

Damages

Civil Code § 3333 provides that damages include all detriment proximately caused by the defendant's negligence, whether anticipated or not. Civil Code § 3283 allows recovery for future losses reasonably certain to occur. In a negligent security case, damages include physical injuries from the assault, psychological harm including post-traumatic stress disorder, lost earnings, and in cases of serious physical injury, the full range of medical and economic damages. Civil Code § 3294 permits punitive damages where the property owner's conduct amounted to malice, oppression, or fraud — a standard that may be met where an owner deliberately ignored prior criminal incidents and repeated safety complaints.

Filing Deadline — Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 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 — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court

Negligent security cases filed in San Jose are heard at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113. All limited and unlimited civil cases must be filed at the Downtown Superior Court under Local Civil Rule 1(C). E-filing is mandatory for represented parties. Cases estimated to take more than one day at trial require a Mandatory Settlement Conference before the trial assignment hearing, with the MSC Statement due no later than five court days before the conference.

Related Pages

• San Jose Personal Injury Attorney
• San Jose Premises Liability Attorney
• San Jose Slip and Fall Attorney
• San Jose Wrongful Death Attorney
• San Jose Traumatic Brain Injury Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles negligent security cases throughout San Jose and Santa Clara 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.