Slip & fall · Subcategory
Negligent Security / Assault Liability Cases
A negligent-security case is a civil claim against a property owner or operator for failing to take reasonable measures to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. Texas recognizes the cause of action when prior similar crimes at or near the property put the owner on notice that an assault, robbery, or similar attack was foreseeable, and the owner failed to respond with reasonable security measures. The framework comes from the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain, and the case-specific application is intensive factual work.
Foreseeability under Timberwalk: the four-factor test
Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749, sets the framework for whether a third-party criminal act was foreseeable to a Texas property owner. The court identified four factors: (1) the proximity of prior crime to the property, (2) the recency of prior crime, (3) the frequency of prior crime, and (4) the similarity of prior crime to the act that injured the plaintiff. Foreseeability is the threshold question; without it, no duty arises to protect against the third-party act. We work the foreseeability question through police crime-grid data, prior incident reports at the property, news coverage, prior negligent-security suits against the same defendant, and the property's own security audits and risk assessments.
Apartment complexes: the most common pattern
Apartment-complex negligent-security cases follow a recurring fact pattern: a property with documented prior violent crime (assaults in the parking lot, prior burglaries, prior shootings), inadequate physical security (broken gates left unrepaired, dark parking areas with non-functioning lighting, perimeter fencing with documented breaches), and no meaningful response to tenant complaints. When a tenant or guest is assaulted in those conditions, the Timberwalk factors usually line up. We obtain the property's tenant complaint records, work orders for security-related repairs, internal audits, prior tenants' deposition testimony where available, and any insurance loss runs that document the prior incident history.
Parking garages, nightclubs, and commercial venues
Parking-garage assaults — particularly those at apartments, hotels, and commercial buildings near downtown Austin's entertainment districts — are a frequent pattern. The duty analysis turns on the same Timberwalk factors plus an additional layer: the venue's representation about security, the visible presence of cameras and access control, and the staffing of any on-site security personnel. Nightclub and bar assault cases involve a related body of law that sometimes overlaps with Texas dram-shop liability under Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02 when the assailant was an over-served patron. Each fact pattern has its own evidence playbook and its own insurance posture.
Reasonable measures: what the duty actually requires
Texas law does not require a property owner to guarantee safety from third-party crime; it requires reasonable measures proportionate to the foreseeable risk. The reasonableness analysis depends on the cost and feasibility of additional measures compared to the magnitude of the risk. In a high-crime apartment complex, that calculus typically includes functional perimeter access control, working exterior lighting, camera coverage of common areas, and prompt response to security-related repair requests. Defense expert testimony often argues whatever was in place was reasonable; plaintiff's expert security-consultant testimony argues otherwise. The fight in serious cases is on the reasonableness of the response, not whether the property had any duty at all.
Frequently asked
Questions Texas accident victims ask us
- In Texas, yes, when the third-party criminal act was foreseeable based on prior similar crime at or near the property and the owner failed to take reasonable security measures. The cause of action is well established under Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain and the line of cases that followed. The case is against the property owner or operator, not the assailant, and the goal is civil recovery, separate from any criminal prosecution that may or may not occur.
- The Texas Supreme Court in Timberwalk laid out four factors: how close prior crime occurred to the property, how recently it occurred, how often it occurred, and how similar it was to the attack on the plaintiff. No single factor controls; it is a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. We typically build the foreseeability case through APD calls-for-service records for the property and surrounding blocks, prior incident reports the property itself generated, prior civil suits against the same property, and news coverage of crime in the immediate area.
- Not necessarily. Cameras matter only if they are actually working, recording, and monitored; and many properties advertise camera coverage that is largely cosmetic or chronically broken. We routinely find systems that were down for weeks before an incident, or that recorded but were never reviewed, or that did not cover the area where the attack occurred. The reasonableness analysis is about what the property actually did, not what it claimed to have done in the leasing brochure.
- Often yes. Nightclub and bar assaults are a frequent negligent-security pattern, particularly when the venue has a documented history of fights or other violent incidents and inadequate security staffing for the patron volume. When the assailant was an over-served patron, Texas dram-shop liability under Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02 can layer on top of the negligent-security claim, a second route to coverage that some venues carry under a separate liquor-liability policy.
- That denial is usually inconsistent with the documentary record. Properties that have experienced prior incidents almost always have written complaint records, prior police reports, internal incident files, and (in some cases) insurance loss runs documenting the history. Where the prior incidents are documented and the property still failed to upgrade security measures, the 'we didn't know' defense rarely holds up.
- No, and waiting is often a mistake. The civil case is separate from the criminal prosecution and has its own statute of limitations, generally two years under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. Some evidence — surveillance footage, employee statements, complaint records — overwrites or becomes harder to obtain quickly. The civil and criminal tracks can proceed in parallel; we coordinate with the District Attorney's office to avoid conflicts where they arise.
- The same categories as any other personal-injury claim: past and future medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, physical pain, mental anguish, and disfigurement. Mental-anguish damages tend to be a larger component than in a typical premises file because the underlying event is a violent crime; clients often have significant ongoing psychological treatment needs, and that future-care projection is part of the damages workup.
- Longer than ordinary premises cases. The foreseeability investigation is intensive: pulling crime-grid data, prior incident records, prior suits against the same defendant, and expert security-consultant analysis. Properties and their insurers tend to defend negligent-security cases aggressively because of the precedential and reputational stakes. Plan on eighteen months to three years for cases that involve serious injuries, and accept that the early-stage offers (if any) usually do not reflect the eventual value once the foreseeability case is fully developed.
Let's talk about your case.
Free case review, no obligation. We'll tell you straight whether we can help.