For injuries on or after April 21, 2025, negligent security claims fall under O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57. An invitee must prove the crime was foreseeable through a specific warning or substantially similar prior incidents the owner actually knew about, that the criminal exploited a known physical condition of the property, and that the owner failed to use ordinary care to fix it. The jury must apportion fault to the criminal, and certain claims are barred entirely.
A negligent security claim says a property owner failed to take reasonable steps to keep people safe from foreseeable crime: a broken gate at an apartment complex, a dark parking deck with a history of robberies, a hotel that ignored a specific threat. The criminal is responsible for the crime, but the owner can share responsibility for creating or ignoring the conditions that made it likely.
Georgia's 2025 tort reform rewrote this area of law. The new article applies to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025, and it is now "the sole and exclusive remedy for negligent security against owners or occupiers." Earlier incidents remain under prior law. This guide covers the new rules.
What counts as a negligent security claim
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-50, it is any tort or nuisance claim against an owner, occupier, or security contractor that seeks damages for bodily injury or wrongful death and "arises from an alleged failure to keep the premises and approaches safe from the wrongful conduct of third persons." "Wrongful conduct" means any felony or misdemeanor, whether or not anyone was arrested or convicted, and any intentional or willful and wanton tort.
Two exceptions are preserved: claims connected to sex trafficking under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-46, and contract claims. A proposed amendment that would have added carve-outs for minors, seniors, and sexual-offense victims did not pass.
The five things an invitee must prove
Most victims are "invitees": customers, tenants, hotel guests, and others on the property for the owner's business. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51, an invitee must prove all five:
- Foreseeability, shown one of three ways: a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct that the owner actually knew and found credible; prior substantially similar incidents the owner actually knew about, on the premises, on adjoining property, or within 500 yards; or, by clear and convincing evidence, that the owner knew or should have known the specific attacker was or would be on the property.
- That the injury was a foreseeable result of that wrongful conduct.
- That the criminal was "exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner or occupier," which made crime there substantially more likely than in the general area. Think broken locks, a dead lighting bank, a hole in a fence.
- That the owner failed to use ordinary care to fix or reduce that condition.
- That the failure was a proximate cause of the injury.
Licensees face a higher bar
A licensee, such as a social guest or someone on the property for their own purposes, must show a particularized warning and that the owner "willfully and wantonly failed to exercise any care" (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-52). That is a much harder standard than ordinary negligence.
When owners are not liable
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-54, there is no negligent security liability for:
- Trespassers.
- Injuries that happen off the premises, or crimes committed from a place the owner had no legal right to exclude the criminal from.
- Tenants or their guests if eviction proceedings against the tenant had already begun.
- A person who came on the property to commit a felony or certain misdemeanors, or was committing one (with an exception for trafficking victims).
- Property used as a single-family residence.
- Particularized-warning claims where the owner made "any reasonable effort" to notify law enforcement. Calling 9-1-1 counts.
What owners must do, and what they don't
The statute says owners don't have to exercise "extraordinary care" or "assume the responsibilities and obligations of government for law enforcement and public safety" (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-55). The jury weighs the security already in place, the need for more, whether more was practical, and whether it would actually have prevented the injury.
How fault is split with the attacker
This is the biggest practical change. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-56, if any defendant is liable, the jury "shall reasonably apportion fault" to the owner and to the person who committed the crime, along with anyone else at fault. The jury can't be told about the criminal's sentence, anyone's financial resources, or how apportionment affects the award.
There is a rebuttable presumption that apportionment is unreasonable if the criminal is assigned less total fault than the owner and others who didn't commit wrongful conduct. If the jury doesn't assign the criminal a reasonable share, the judge must set aside the verdict and order a new trial. Because Georgia generally makes each defendant pay only its share (O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33), the owner's percentage drives what can actually be collected.
What to do after an assault or robbery on someone's property
- Report the crime to police and get the report number. Prior police calls to the address can become key evidence of foreseeability.
- Photograph the scene as soon as you can: lighting, gates, locks, fences, cameras, and signs. Owners often fix conditions quickly after an incident.
- Write down any prior incidents or warnings you know about: emails from management, neighborhood posts, earlier break-ins.
- Ask a lawyer to send a preservation letter for surveillance video. Many systems overwrite footage within days.
- Get medical care and keep every record.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue an apartment complex for an assault in Georgia?
Possibly. For incidents on or after April 21, 2025, you would need to prove the crime was foreseeable through a specific warning or substantially similar prior incidents the owner knew about, that the attacker exploited a known physical condition, and that the owner failed to fix it. Tenants under eviction proceedings and some other claims are barred.
What is the 500-yard rule in Georgia negligent security cases?
Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51, prior substantially similar crimes can show foreseeability if they happened on the premises, on adjoining property, or within 500 yards of the premises, and the owner actually knew about them.
Does the 2025 negligent security law apply to my case?
It applies to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025. Incidents before that date are governed by prior Georgia premises liability law.
Will the jury blame the criminal instead of the property owner?
The jury must apportion fault to both. The statute presumes apportionment is unreasonable if the criminal gets less total fault than the non-criminal defendants, though that presumption can be rebutted.
Sources
This guide is general information about Georgia law as of October 29, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Talk to a lawyer about your situation before you rely on a deadline or rule described here.