Negligent Security Claims in Georgia After SB 68: Can You Still Sue After an Assault on Someone Else’s Property?

For decades, Georgia was one of the most favorable states in the country for people who were shot, stabbed, robbed, or assaulted on someone else’s property. If an apartment complex or gas station knew crime was a problem and did nothing about lighting, gates, or guards, a jury could hold the owner responsible. That changed on April 21, 2025. Senate Bill 68 rewrote the rules for a negligent security claim in Georgia from the ground up, and anyone injured by a crime on commercial or rental property since that date needs to understand the new framework. This article explains what the law now requires, what it excludes, and how a claim can still succeed.

What a Negligent Security Claim in Georgia Is

Negligent security is a type of premises liability. The theory is simple: a property owner who invites the public onto its premises has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. A parking deck with no lighting and a history of carjackings, an apartment complex with broken gates and a string of shootings, a nightclub with no security despite repeated fights: in each case the owner did not commit the crime, but the owner’s failure to act made the crime possible. Before 2025, Georgia courts applied a general “reasonable foreseeability” test built largely on prior similar crimes, and Georgia juries returned some of the largest negligent security verdicts in the nation.

What SB 68 Changed

Sections 51-3-50 through 51-3-57 of the Georgia Code, created by Senate Bill 68, now provide the exclusive framework for these claims. The new law applies to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025, meaning the date of the crime controls, not the date a lawsuit is filed. The major changes:

1. Foreseeability is now narrowly defined

An owner or occupier is liable to an invitee, such as a customer or tenant, only if the owner had a “particularized warning” of imminent wrongful conduct by the specific third party, or “reasonably should have known” of the risk. The second phrase, which used to be flexible, is now limited by statute to three situations:

• Prior substantially similar crimes on the premises;
• Prior substantially similar crimes within 500 yards of the premises; or
• Prior crimes by the same perpetrator, where the owner knew by clear and convincing evidence that person would be on the property.

Each requires actual knowledge on the owner’s part. Arguing that an owner “should have checked” crime statistics is no longer enough.

2. The crime must have exploited a specific physical condition

The injured person must show that the criminal exploited a specific physical condition on the property that the owner knew about and failed to remedy: a broken gate, a non-working lock, a burned-out light, a missing camera the owner had promised. General claims that the property “should have had security” are much harder to bring. How courts read this element, and whether the total absence of a security measure counts as a “condition,” will be litigated for years.

3. Licensees and trespassers get less protection

A licensee, such as a social guest of a tenant, can recover only if the owner had a particularized warning. A trespasser is owed no duty at all under the new statute.

4. Fault must be apportioned to the criminal

The jury must assign a percentage of fault to the person who committed the crime, and there is a rebuttable presumption that a verdict is unreasonable if the criminal’s share is lower than the combined share of the owner, occupier, and any security contractor. A verdict that assigns no fault to the criminal must be retried. Because a defendant pays only its own percentage under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, this provision directly reduces what an injured person can collect from the owner.

5. Broad exclusions

The statute excludes single-family homes, injuries that occur off the premises, and victims who were themselves committing a felony or a theft-related misdemeanor at the time. A landlord that had begun eviction proceedings against a tenant who then commits a crime is protected, as is a landlord that called 911 when it learned of an imminent danger.

Our overview of Georgia’s new tort reform laws covers the rest of SB 68.

What Has Not Changed

SB 68 narrowed negligent security law; it did not abolish it. The core duty of an owner to protect invitees from crime it knows is coming remains. Three points are worth emphasizing:

• Crimes before April 21, 2025 are governed by the old law. A shooting at an apartment complex in 2024 is still evaluated under the more favorable pre-SB 68 standard, and the two-year statute of limitations means many of those claims are still viable in 2026.
• Owners with a documented history of crime on their own property are still exposed. The clearest negligent security claim in Georgia was always the apartment complex with a dozen police reports for the same kind of crime and a broken gate. That case can still be brought.
• Security companies are still defendants. A contractor that failed to staff a post or ignored a camera feed can be liable alongside the owner.

What a Strong Claim Looks Like Now

Under the new statute, the winning cases share a profile. Someone was hurt as an invitee: a tenant, a customer, a guest of the business. The owner had actual knowledge of prior similar crimes on or within 500 yards of the property, typically proven with police call logs, incident reports, prior lawsuits, tenant complaints, and the owner’s own emails. There was a specific physical failure the owner knew about, such as a gate that had been reported broken for months, and the perpetrator used it. And the owner did nothing. Cases with that profile can still produce substantial recoveries, but they must be built deliberately, and the evidence must be gathered before it disappears.

Steps to Take After an Assault or Shooting on Commercial or Rental Property

1. Report it. The police report anchors the case and starts the record.
2. Photograph the conditions immediately: broken gates, dark areas, propped doors, missing cameras. Owners fix things quickly after an incident.
3. Identify witnesses, including other tenants or customers who complained about security before.
4. Preserve your own communications with management about safety.
5. Contact a lawyer quickly. Surveillance video is overwritten, and open records requests for prior police calls take time.

Our article on when to think about premises liability covers the basics that still apply.

Deadlines

A negligent security claim in Georgia must be filed within two years of the injury, or two years of the death in a wrongful death case. When the perpetrator is being prosecuted, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-99 can pause that clock for up to six years, but the prosecution does not pause the destruction of evidence. If the property is owned by a housing authority or other government entity, ante litem notice deadlines of six or twelve months apply. Our statute of limitations guide explains those rules.

Frequently Asked Questions

Talk to an Atlanta Premises Liability Attorney

SB 68 made negligent security cases harder, not impossible. The owners most likely to be held responsible are the ones who knew about the danger and let it continue. If you or a family member was the victim of a crime on someone else’s property, our Atlanta premises liability attorneys will tell you candidly whether a claim exists under the new law. Call Hoffspiegel Law at (404) 760-8600 or contact us online for a free consultation.

This article is general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice about your specific situation.