An apartment complex sells safety as much as shelter. When a tenant or guest is assaulted, robbed, or shot in a complex that ignored an obvious crime problem, Florida law can hold the property owner responsible alongside the person who pulled the trigger. These are among the most serious negligent security cases I handle.
The landlord’s duty
A landlord owes tenants and their lawful guests a duty of reasonable care in the common areas it controls, the parking lots, breezeways, stairwells, laundry rooms, and gates. When violent crime is foreseeable on the property, reasonable care includes reasonable security. A complex cannot collect rent on the promise of a gated, patrolled community and then let the cameras fail and the gates stand open.
When a shooting happens at an apartment complex, the whole case lives in the record, and reading that record is the work I built my career on. I spent my years in criminal courtrooms, so I go through police reports, crime data, and arrest histories the way most injury lawyers never learn to, and I understand how a violent crime unfolds and how a property’s choices invite it in. That is foreseeability, and it is the heart of a negligent security claim: whether the owner saw the danger and did nothing. I represent injured people, not insurance companies, and I came up as a public defender who tried numerous cases and cross-examined witnesses constantly, so I am willing to put your case in front of a jury, which is often what moves an insurer to pay fair value. I handle your case personally, from the first call through trial. Learn more about my background.
The multifamily presumption, and its limits
Since 2023, a multifamily property with five or more units can claim a presumption against liability for a tenant-area crime, but only by proving it substantially implemented a specific set of measures: entry and exit cameras that retain footage, parking and walkway lighting at set levels, deadbolts and working locks, secure gates, and a crime prevention assessment completed by the required deadline, plus staff training. The burden is on the owner to prove all of that. A complex that cut corners on any meaningful piece gets no presumption, which I explain on the HB 837 presumption.
The presumption is the owner’s burden, not yours
Since 2023, apartment owners have a new argument, the presumption against liability under section 768.0706, Florida Statutes, and it is narrower than they often suggest. The presumption applies only if the complex substantially implemented the security measures the statute lists, the recording cameras kept for thirty days, the parking-lot lighting at the required intensity, the lit walkways and common areas, the deadbolts and window locks, the CPTED assessment, and the employee training, and the burden is on the owner to prove it did all of that. Many properties did not. A camera system that was not recording, a lot that fell short of the lighting standard, a missing or outdated CPTED assessment, any of these can keep the presumption from applying at all. And even a complex that earns the presumption can still be held liable, because it is rebuttable and it does not excuse ignoring a specific known danger. So the 2023 law is something to work through in these cases, not a wall that ends them.
Proving the complex should have known
Foreseeability usually comes from the property’s own history. Prior robberies, assaults, shootings, and the police calls they generated show that management knew, or should have known, that residents were at risk. Gathering that record, the call logs, the reports, the pattern, is the work that decides these cases, and it is the kind of record I know how to read. More on foreseeability and prior crime.
What a complex almost always knew
Apartment complexes are rarely surprised by crime on their property, which is what makes these cases provable. A complex generates a paper trail of what it knew: resident complaints about broken gates, burned-out lights, and strangers on the property, work orders that show how long a security problem sat unfixed, prior incident reports and police calls to the address, and sometimes earlier lawsuits over the same conditions. Management often knew the neighborhood, knew the crime history, and knew which parts of the property were dark or unsecured, because residents had been telling them. Building the case means getting that history into the open, the call data for the address, the complaint and maintenance records, and the accounts of residents and former employees, so that a jury sees a landlord that understood the danger rather than one caught off guard. When the record shows the complex knew and did not act, the argument that the attack was unforeseeable collapses.
Two claims, two sources of recovery
An attack at an apartment can support two claims: one against the attacker for the assault, and one against the complex for the security failure that allowed it. They run separately, and the practical difference is insurance. The individual attacker rarely has assets; the property and its management company usually carry liability coverage that can answer for a serious injury or a death, which may also reach a wrongful death claim.
Deadlines
For an injury on or after March 24, 2023, Florida generally gives you two years to bring the negligence claim against the property owner under Fla. Stat. 95.11. A separate claim against the attacker for the assault or battery carries a longer four-year window. Crime scene evidence and video are often gone within weeks, so the real deadline for preserving proof comes long before the legal one.
An apartment complex that let its security fail almost always knew what it was risking, and I build the case around what it knew and did not fix. I gather the complaints, the work orders, and the crime history, and I hold the owner to the full checklist the presumption requires rather than letting it claim a shield it did not earn. I represent injured people and grieving families, not apartment owners, and I make a complex answer for the danger it understood and chose to leave in place.
Common Questions
Can I sue my apartment complex if I was assaulted or shot there?
You may be able to. A landlord owes tenants and their guests a duty of reasonable care, and when violent crime was foreseeable, that includes reasonable security. If the complex had a history of crime and failed to provide working cameras, lighting, locks, or access control, it can be held responsible alongside the attacker.
How does the 2023 apartment security law affect my case?
Florida now gives multifamily properties with five or more units a presumption against liability, but only if the owner proves it substantially met a list of security measures and completed a required assessment. Many complexes have not, and a property that fell short of those standards does not get the presumption.
What security should an apartment complex have?
It depends on the property and its crime history, but the law's own list is a guide: entry and exit cameras that retain footage, lit parking and walkways, deadbolts and working locks on doors and windows, secure gates, and trained staff. Gaps in these, especially after prior crime, are what build the case.
What if management knew about prior crimes and did nothing?
That is often the strongest version of these cases. Evidence that the complex knew of earlier robberies, assaults, or shootings and still failed to improve security goes directly to foreseeability and to whether the owner acted reasonably. Prior police calls and incident records are central proof.
Is my case against the complex or the person who attacked me?
It can be both, on separate tracks. The claim against the attacker is for the assault itself; the claim against the complex is for failing to provide reasonable security against a foreseeable crime. The complex usually has insurance, which the individual attacker rarely does.
Related: Negligent security overview, Foreseeability and prior crime, The HB 837 presumption, Parking lot and garage attacks, and About Rory Safir.
This page is general information about Florida negligent security law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The governing authorities include Fla. Stat. 768.0706 (the multifamily residential presumption) and 768.81 and 95.11, applied with Florida case law on a landlord’s duty regarding foreseeable third-party crime. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.
