How to Prove Negligent Security in a Premises Liability Case
March 20, 2025
When you are injured in a car accident in Pennsylvania, you don’t sue the state for allowing the other driver on the road. Instead, you sue the driver for compensation, especially if they intentionally hit your car.
The typical standard is that when someone does something to intentionally harm you, they are liable for any damages you suffer from that harm. However, that isn’t always the case under premises liability law. In some circumstances, the owner or manager of a building may be responsible for the harm you suffered, under the concept of negligent security premises liability. If this applies to an injury you suffered, you need to understand how to prove the property owner was liable.
Proving Security Negligence in Pennsylvania
The basic concept of premises liability law is that the owner of a property has a duty to protect invited visitors from harm while they are on the premises. This duty doesn’t just mean they shouldn’t directly injure you. It also means they should proactively identify dangers to visitors and correct them before they cause injuries. If an owner doesn’t fulfill this obligation, they are susceptible to a tort action from an injured party.
Negligence doesn’t involve only physical hazards. A property owner can be negligent if they fail to provide appropriate security, resulting in your being hurt by another party. This means that even if another person walks into a building and attacks you, the owner of that building may be liable for your injury. How does that work, and how can you prove negligent security in a premises liability case?
The main question to ask in these types of cases is whether the owner was obligated to provide security and whether they ignored that obligation.
For example, if you live in an apartment complex in a neighborhood where break-ins have been common, the owner of that apartment should be aware of the danger. Based on that knowledge of the danger, they should provide security for the building you live in. That security might be cameras, security doors, or security guards. Any of these options could potentially prevent break-ins and protect you from getting hurt by someone breaking into your building.
Failing to provide appropriate security or allowing security measures to be easily bypassed could make the owner liable for your injuries if you were attacked.
To prove the property owner was negligent, your premises liability attorney would show that:
- There was a reasonable expectation of danger.
- The property owner was aware of or should have been aware of that danger.
- The property owner didn’t take the appropriate actions to provide security against that danger.
- You were injured due to that lack of security.
- Your injuries resulted in significant damages.
Just as they would in a car accident or medical malpractice case, your attorney will collect evidence that supports each of these elements of a negligent security claim.
Were you seriously hurt due to a lack of security? You may be eligible to file a premises liability claim against the owner of the property where you were hurt. Contact Wapner Newman at (215) 569-0900 to discuss your legal options with an experienced attorney.
Is the Property Owner Always Liable?
If the property owner were always liable after someone got injured on their property, premises liability law would be simple. Unfortunately, it isn’t simple. There are several situations where you can’t file a negligent security claim against a property owner.
The Owner Made a Reasonable Effort to Provide Security
Just because you were harmed by a mugger while using a parking garage, that doesn’t mean the property owner didn’t make reasonable efforts to prevent that harm. If, for example, the parking garage had good lighting, security guards that performed sweeps every fifteen minutes, and cameras that monitored every floor, a jury would likely find that they took reasonable measures to protect your safety.
The property owner is not required to take extraordinary measures. Even if having multiple security guards on every floor of the garage could have prevented the attack, that isn’t a reasonable expectation.
When a property owner makes every reasonable effort to provide for your security, there is no way to prove negligent security in a premises liability claim.
The Owner Couldn’t Have Been Aware of the Danger
A property owner must reasonably be aware of a danger to be required to defend against it. If there is no reasonable way for a property owner to be aware of a particular threat, they can’t be expected to provide security against it. Some security threats are uncommon enough that no reasonable property owner would think to protect invited visitors from them unless explicitly notified that the danger exists.
The Owner Is Only Partially at Fault for Your Injuries
Even though an owner can be liable for your injuries when another party intentionally caused them, the person who hurt you is not absolved of liability. If you know the identity of the individual who deliberately hurt you, both the owner of the property and the assailant may share liability.
In this situation, you need to determine what share of responsibility each party has. A jury, for example, might decide that the owner was only 20% responsible for your injuries. If that were the case, under the modified comparative negligence standard in Pennsylvania, you would only be able to collect compensation from the property owner equal to 20% of any award the jury granted you. This is even more complicated if you are partially responsible for your own injuries. In that case, you can collect damages from other parties only if you are 50% or less responsible for any harm you suffered.
Contact a Negligent Security Premises Liability Lawyer Today
If you were seriously injured due to negligent security at a property where you were lawfully present, Pennsylvania law allows you to get compensation for the harm you suffered. Contact Wapner Newman at (215) 569-0900 to schedule a free consultation immediately.