In 2023 Florida passed a sweeping tort law, HB 837, that changed how negligent security cases work. Property owners describe it as a near-total shield. It is not. Understanding what it in fact did, and what it did not, is central to any negligent security case today.
What HB 837 changed
The law did three things that matter here. It created a presumption against liability for qualifying multifamily properties that meet specific security standards. It shortened the time to file a negligence claim from four years to two. And it moved Florida from pure to modified comparative negligence, meaning an injured person found more than 50 percent at fault recovers nothing. The two-year clock and the comparative rule apply broadly; the presumption is specific to qualifying properties.
HB 837 changed how apartment owners defend these cases, but it did not change what wins them: the criminal record of the property. I spent my career in criminal courtrooms reading police reports, crime data, and arrest records in a way most injury lawyers never learn to, and I understand how a crime happens and how a complex’s choices invited it. Whether an owner meets the statute’s security checklist and whether the harm was still foreseeable are questions the evidence answers, and I know that evidence cold. I represent injured people, not insurance companies, and as a former public defender who tried numerous cases and cross-examined witnesses constantly, I am willing to take your case to 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, section 768.0706
The centerpiece is a presumption against liability for the owner of a multifamily residential property, an apartment, townhouse, or condominium property with at least five units, for a crime committed by a third party. But the owner only gets it by proving substantial implementation of a detailed list: entry and exit cameras that retain footage, parking lit to a set intensity and walkways lit dusk to dawn, deadbolts and working locks on doors and windows, secure gates, a crime prevention assessment completed by the required deadline and kept current, and employee safety training. The burden to prove every piece of that is on the owner, not on you.
The statute’s checklist is also the plaintiff’s checklist
The apartment presumption was written to protect owners, and read closely it hands a victim a roadmap. The presumption only applies if the owner substantially implemented every one of the security measures the statute lists, and the burden is on the owner, not on you, to prove it did. So the statute’s own checklist becomes the list of things to test. Were there cameras at the entrances and exits, and did they record and keep the footage for at least thirty days, or was the system down or overwritten? Was the parking lot lit to the intensity the law names, an average of at least 1.8 foot-candles, or was it dark where the attack happened? Were the walkways, laundry rooms, and common areas lit, the doors deadbolted, the windows and pool gates locked? Did the property have the required CPTED assessment done by a qualified professional, and did it stay in substantial compliance with it, and were the employees trained? Each of those is a place the owner’s claim to the presumption can fall apart, because a property that skipped or half-did any of them may not qualify at all.
A presumption is not a bar
This is the point owners gloss over. The presumption does not end a case; it shifts and raises what must be shown. More importantly, it reaches only properties that earned it. A complex that left cameras broken, let the lighting fail, never completed the assessment, or skipped the training does not get the presumption at all, and the case proceeds under ordinary negligent security law, where the same prior-crime proof on foreseeability carries it.
Even a compliant property can still be liable
It is worth being clear about what the presumption is and is not, because owners and insurers often overstate it. It is a presumption against liability, not a grant of immunity. Even where an owner shows it substantially implemented the measures and earns the presumption, that presumption can be rebutted by the facts of the case. A property might have checked every box on the statute and still have ignored a specific, known danger that reasonable care demanded it address. The measures are a floor, a set of baseline steps, not a ceiling on what a reasonably careful owner would do when the circumstances called for more. So the 2023 law changed the terrain of these cases, and it did not end them. The two questions remain what they always were, whether the harm was foreseeable and whether the owner did what was reasonable, and the presumption is one more thing to work through on the way to those answers, not a wall that stops the case.
How the presumption is overcome
Because the owner has to prove substantial compliance with every meaningful measure, the case turns on what was missing or broken. The camera that recorded nothing, the parking lights that were dark, the gate that never closed, the assessment that was never done. Discovery into the property’s security records, maintenance logs, and the assessment itself is how those gaps surface, and a real one defeats the shield. Convenience stores have their own separate standards, which I cover on gas station and convenience store crime.
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.
Property owners and their insurers treat the 2023 apartment law as a shield that ends these cases, and read carefully it does no such thing. I test whether the property did everything the statute requires, since the burden is on the owner and the checklist is detailed, and I show when a known danger demanded more than the baseline measures. I represent injured people, not property owners, and I do not let a presumption meant to protect landlords be waved around as if it were immunity, because it is not.
Common Questions
What did HB 837 change for negligent security cases?
The 2023 law made several changes. It created a presumption against liability for qualifying multifamily properties that meet specific security standards, shortened the time to sue from four years to two, and moved Florida to a modified comparative negligence system with a 51 percent bar to recovery.
What is the multifamily presumption under 768.0706?
It is a presumption that a qualifying apartment, townhouse, or condominium property with five or more units is not liable for a third-party crime, available only if the owner proves it substantially implemented set security measures and completed a crime prevention assessment. The burden to prove all of that is on the owner.
Does the presumption mean I cannot sue?
No. It does not bar the claim; it raises what you have to show. And it applies only to owners who truly met the standards. A property that failed on the cameras, lighting, locks, the assessment, or training does not get the presumption, and you proceed under ordinary negligent security law.
What are the required security measures?
For multifamily properties they include entry and exit cameras that retain footage, parking and walkway lighting at set levels, deadbolts and working locks on doors and windows, secure gates, a crime prevention assessment by the required deadline, and employee safety training. Convenience stores follow a separate set of standards.
How do you beat the presumption?
By attacking compliance. The owner has to prove substantial implementation of every meaningful measure, so the case focuses on what was missing or broken: the camera that did not record, the lights that were out, the assessment never done. A real gap defeats the presumption.
Related: Negligent security overview, Foreseeability and prior crime, Apartment assaults and shootings, Gas station and store crime, 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 are Fla. Stat. 768.0706 (the multifamily residential presumption) and 768.0705 with the Convenience Business Security Act, together with the HB 837 changes to 95.11 (two-year limitations) and 768.81 (modified comparative negligence). 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.
