A neighborhood’s reputation for crime doesn’t automatically make a property owner liable after an assault, robbery, or shooting. What matters is whether the owner knew about a foreseeable danger and, for incidents on or after April 21, 2025, whether a condition on the property created a security risk beyond the general risk in the surrounding area.
The incident date is the first fact to identify. Georgia changed its negligent security law on April 21, 2025, creating a more specific test for incidents occurring on or after that date.
The Incident Date Determines Which Foreseeability Rule Applies
Foreseeability concerns whether a property owner should have anticipated a criminal risk and taken reasonable steps to address it. The legal standard depends on whether the incident occurred before April 21, 2025, or on or after that date.
For incidents before April 21, 2025, Georgia courts applied a totality-of-the-circumstances approach. In Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, the Georgia Supreme Court explained that substantially similar prior crimes were often strong evidence of foreseeability, but they weren’t the only evidence a court could consider. The timing, location, frequency, and nature of earlier criminal activity could all matter alongside other facts showing what the owner knew.
For incidents on or after April 21, 2025, Senate Bill 68, often called SB 68, added a statutory framework for negligent security claims in Georgia Code sections 51-3-50 through -57. Older cases may still explain general premises liability principles, but they don’t replace the requirements that now apply.
How Prior Crimes Can Establish Foreseeability
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51, past criminal activity can help establish foreseeability, but the statute requires a closer connection than a general claim that an area was unsafe. In Georgia negligent security claims, this evidence is most useful when it shows that the owner had actual knowledge of a relevant danger.
For an incident on or after April 21, 2025, foreseeability may be established in either of these ways:
- The owner had actual knowledge of prior substantially similar wrongful conduct, meaning criminal behavior similar in its nature and danger, on the property or within 500 yards of it.
- The owner received a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct, meaning a concrete warning about a specific and immediate threat rather than a general concern about crime.
“Substantially similar” doesn’t mean the prior event must match every detail of the later crime. The analysis considers the type and dangerousness of the conduct, its proximity in time and place, and the surrounding circumstances. A documented pattern of violent confrontations in an apartment complex parking lot, for example, may be more relevant to a later parking-lot assault than a distant property crime from years earlier.
A single police call or a high neighborhood crime rate doesn’t settle the issue. The important questions are what happened, where and when it happened, and whether the owner or manager actually knew about it.
Prior Crime Alone Doesn’t Establish a Negligent Security Claim
Georgia law requires property owners to exercise ordinary care in keeping their premises safe for invitees. In a negligent security case, evidence of earlier criminal activity is only one part of the analysis.
For incidents governed by the current statute, the criminal conduct must have exploited a specific condition of the premises that created a security risk substantially greater than the general risk in the area. This requirement keeps the focus on the owner’s property rather than the broader neighborhood.
Relevant property conditions include:
- Broken gates, doors, locks, or monitored entrances that allowed unauthorized access.
- Inadequate lighting in a parking area, stairwell, walkway, or common area.
- Nonfunctioning surveillance equipment or ignored reports of recurring security problems.
- Missing security patrols where the property’s own history showed a known need for them.
Georgia’s current law also requires a jury to apportion fault among the owner or occupier and the person who committed the criminal act. The criminal’s conduct remains central, but it doesn’t end the inquiry into whether an owner failed to address a known security risk.
Records That Reveal Prior Crimes & Security Failures
Prior criminal activity is established through records, not assumptions. Some information is publicly available, while other evidence must be requested and preserved before it’s lost or overwritten.
Useful records include:
- Police reports, 911 call logs, and incident records involving the property or immediate area.
- Property management incident reports, tenant complaints, and internal security communications.
- Maintenance requests and work orders involving lights, locks, gates, cameras, or access systems.
- Surveillance footage, lease agreements, photographs, and records of security staffing or patrols.
Evaluate each record based on its date, location, underlying conduct, and whether it reached the owner or manager. A report about an assault near a property carries more weight when it’s close in time and location to the later incident and when evidence shows that management received notice.
For Valdosta properties, negligent security matters are generally evaluated in the context of Lowndes County. Law enforcement activity and property-specific information may affect the foreseeability analysis, but the details of the location and the owner’s knowledge remain more important than a broad label attached to an entire area.
Preserve Evidence Before the Filing Deadline
Georgia generally gives an injured person two years from the date a claim accrues to file a personal injury lawsuit under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. Case-specific circumstances can affect the deadline, so waiting to investigate creates risks for both filing and preserving evidence.
Surveillance footage may be overwritten, repair records may become harder to locate, and witnesses’ memories can fade. Promptly preserve photographs and communications with the property, along with medical and police records. This evidence can help establish what the property looked like, what happened, and what information the owner had before the incident.
A careful review begins with when and where the incident happened. It then examines prior criminal activity and the security condition that the offender may have exploited. The question isn’t simply whether crime occurred nearby, but whether the evidence connects a foreseeable criminal risk to a property owner’s failure to use ordinary care.
At Studstill Firm, LLP, we draw on our work representing Georgia injury victims since 1981 to review reports, photographs, lease information, and other evidence of prior notice and unsafe property conditions. To discuss a potential claim, reach our team at (229) 515-8900.