Gas stations and convenience stores are robbed and targeted so often that Florida wrote a statute specifically about their security. When a store ignores those requirements in a location where crime is foreseeable and a customer is hurt, the law it broke becomes the backbone of a negligent security case.
The Convenience Business Security Act
Florida’s Convenience Business Security Act sets concrete security standards for these stores: a working camera system that records and retains usable images, a drop safe or cash management device, a parking lot lit to a set intensity, a conspicuous notice that the register holds limited cash, clear window sightlines to the counter, height markers at the entrance, a cash-limiting policy, and a silent alarm. Stores where certain violent crimes have occurred must add further measures, such as two employees on duty late at night or a secured enclosure.
Gas stations and convenience stores draw crime, and the proof of what a store knew sits in the same records I have spent my career reading in criminal courtrooms. I go through police reports, crime data, and arrest histories in a way most injury lawyers never learn to, so I can show whether the robberies and assaults on that corner were foreseeable and whether the owner ignored them. A store that skips lighting, cameras, or a security presence after repeated crime has invited the very harm that followed. I represent injured people, not insurance companies, and I am a trial lawyer who came up as a public defender, tried numerous cases, and cross-examined witnesses constantly, so I am prepared to put your case in front of a jury, which is often what moves an insurer to pay fair value. I handle your case myself, from the first call through trial. Learn more about my background.
A statute that spells out the minimum security
Convenience stores and gas stations are unusual among negligent-security cases because Florida law spells out, in a statute, some of the security a store is supposed to have. The Convenience Business Security Act sets baseline requirements for these businesses, measures like a working security camera system, a drop safe or cash-management device, adequate lighting inside and out, and clear signage, all aimed at the robberies and violence these locations are known to attract. That statute is a gift to an injured victim, because it turns a vague question about reasonable security into a concrete one: did the store have what the law requires, and did it work. When a station’s cameras were down, its lighting was dark, or its required safeguards were missing, that failure is a shortfall against a standard the Legislature itself set for exactly this kind of harm, not merely bad practice. Matching what the Act requires against what the store had is often the fastest way to show negligence.
The store presumption, and its limits
A store that substantially complies with those standards can claim a presumption against liability for a third-party crime. As with the apartment presumption, it protects only the store that earned it. A store that skipped the camera, let the lot go dark, kept too much cash on hand, or ignored the late-night staffing rules gets no shield, and its violation of the statute becomes evidence against it.
Prior crime and the enhanced measures
Many of these stores have been robbed before, sometimes repeatedly. That history does two things: it establishes foreseeability, and it can trigger the law’s enhanced security requirements. A store that knew it was a target, was legally required to add protection, and did not is squarely where liability attaches. Pulling the prior police reports is the first move, as I describe on foreseeability and prior crime.
When a robbery history demanded more
The Act does more than set a floor, it recognizes that some locations are more dangerous than others and requires them to respond. A store with a history of robberies is expected to add enhanced security measures, because the law understands that prior crime at a location makes future crime foreseeable. That is the same foreseeability principle at the heart of every negligent-security case, written directly into a statute for convenience businesses. So when a station where people had been robbed before did nothing to increase its security, and someone was then hurt in another robbery, the case is unusually strong, because both the general duty to protect invitees and the specific statutory duty to respond to a robbery history point the same way. Proving that history, from police records, the store’s own reports, and prior incidents, is what turns a single attack into evidence of a danger the store knew about and failed to answer.
Finding every responsible party
These cases often involve more than the store on the corner. The franchisee who ran it, the corporation that owned the brand and set the policies, and the operator responsible for security practices may each share fault and each carry coverage. Identifying all of them is part of building a recovery that matches a serious injury.
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.
Gas stations and convenience stores are among the few places where the law itself lists the security that should have been there, and I use that to a victim’s advantage. I compare what the Convenience Business Security Act required against what the store had, and I pull the robbery history that should have forced it to do more. I represent injured people, not the companies that run these stores, and when a business ignored the safeguards the law set for exactly this danger, I make it answer for what happened.
Common Questions
Can I sue a gas station or convenience store after being robbed or shot there?
Often, yes. Convenience stores and gas stations are frequent crime targets, and Florida law sets specific security standards for them. A store that failed to meet those standards, in a location with foreseeable crime, can be liable when a customer is robbed, assaulted, or shot.
What security is a convenience store required to have?
Florida's Convenience Business Security Act lists measures such as a working camera system, a drop safe, a lit parking lot, a notice that the register holds limited cash, clear window sightlines, and a silent alarm. Stores with a history of certain violent crimes must add measures like two clerks late at night or a secured enclosure.
There's a law that protects the store, right?
There is a presumption against liability for stores that substantially comply with the security standards, but it is a shield only for stores that truly met them. A store that ignored the camera, the lighting, the cash limits, or the late-night staffing rules does not get that protection.
What if the store had been robbed before?
That history is powerful. Prior robberies and violent crimes at the store, and the police reports they generated, go straight to foreseeability and often to the enhanced measures the law required. A store that knew it was a target and skipped the required security is the strong version of these cases.
Is the case against the store or the corporation that owns it?
Often both. The individual store, the franchisee, and the corporate owner or operator may each share responsibility depending on who set and controlled the security practices. Identifying each is part of finding the available coverage.
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 the Convenience Business Security Act, Fla. Stat. 812.171 through 812.175, and 768.0705 (the convenience store presumption), with 768.81 and 95.11, applied alongside Florida case law on 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.
