Can a Georgia Property Owner Be Liable When You’re Attacked by Someone Else on Their Property?

A person assaulted, robbed, or otherwise harmed by a criminal on someone else’s property can sometimes, under Georgia law, bring a claim against the property owner for negligent security. But the 2025 tort reform sharply narrowed when these claims succeed, raising the bar for property owners’ liability. This guide explains what negligent security is, the new foreseeability requirement, the prior-conduct and 500-yard rules, the mandatory apportionment to the criminal, and the line between the old and new regimes.

What Negligent Security Is

Negligent security is a form of premises liability based on a third party’s crime. The theory is that a property owner who could reasonably foresee criminal conduct on the premises, and who failed to take ordinary measures to guard against it, may be liable when a visitor is harmed by that crime. Historically, these claims were litigated under Georgia’s general premises statute, and a series of court decisions had expanded owners’ exposure, contributing to large verdicts. The 2025 reform responded by creating a dedicated statutory framework, codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57, that significantly tightens the standards.

The Foreseeability Requirement, Narrowed

Under the new framework, foreseeability is the central hurdle, and it is now defined narrowly. For an invitee, the wrongful conduct is reasonably foreseeable only if the owner either had a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person, or reasonably should have known such conduct was likely based on specific prior occurrences (discussed below). The standard for a licensee is even stricter, generally requiring a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct.

Beyond foreseeability, the statute layers in additional requirements: the injury must have been a foreseeable result of the third party exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner, a condition creating a risk substantially greater than the general risk in the surrounding area; the owner must have failed to exercise ordinary care to remedy that condition; and that failure must have been a proximate cause of the injury. Each of these is a separate element a plaintiff must establish.

Prior Similar Conduct and the 500-Yard Rule

The most common path to foreseeability is prior similar conduct, and the statute defines it precisely. An owner may be charged with foreseeability based on actual knowledge of prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct on the premises; prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct on adjoining property or otherwise within 500 yards of the premises; or prior substantially similar conduct by the same perpetrator, where the owner knew or should have known that person would be on the premises.

The 500-yard boundary and the “substantially similar” and “actual knowledge” requirements are meaningful limits. General awareness that an area has crime is not enough; the statute points to specific, known, similar prior incidents within a defined zone.

Mandatory Apportionment to the Criminal

The new framework also changes how fault is divided. In a negligent security action, the jury must apportion fault among the owner or occupier, the third party whose wrongful conduct caused the injury (the criminal), and any other responsible person. Critically, if the jury fails to apportion a reasonable degree of fault to the perpetrator, the court must set aside the verdict and order a new trial.

The statute reinforces this with a rebuttable presumption: an apportionment is presumed unreasonable if the total fault assigned to the perpetrators is less than the total fault assigned to the owners, occupiers, security contractors, and others who did not commit the wrongful conduct. The practical effect is that a meaningful share of fault must go to the actual criminal, which reduces the share, and the recovery, attributable to the property owner.

The Old vs. New Regime

This framework applies prospectively. The negligent security provisions govern claims arising from incidents on or after April 21, 2025. Claims based on earlier incidents are governed by the prior law, under which foreseeability could be shown more flexibly, including through a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that did not strictly require specific prior similar crimes.

The statute also includes exclusions barring negligent security claims in certain situations, such as injuries to trespassers, injuries on single-family residential premises, and cases where the owner reported a specific imminent threat to law enforcement. The date the incident occurred therefore determines which framework applies, and the difference is substantial: the post-reform standard is markedly harder for an injured person to satisfy.

Key Takeaways

• Negligent security lets a victim sue a property owner for a third party’s crime, but the 2025 reform (O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 to 51-3-57) sharply narrowed these claims.
• Foreseeability now requires a particularized warning or actual knowledge of substantially similar prior conduct on the premises, on adjoining property, or within 500 yards.
• Juries must apportion fault to the criminal, and a verdict assigning the perpetrator too little fault must be set aside.
• The new framework applies to incidents on or after April 21, 2025; earlier incidents fall under the more flexible prior law.

This article provides general information about Georgia law and is not legal advice. Statutes and court decisions change, and how the law applies depends on the specific facts of a situation. For advice about a particular matter, consult a licensed Georgia attorney.