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

Yes, if the attack was foreseeable in the specific way Georgia’s 2025 negligent security statute requires. For an attack on or after April 21, 2025, an invitee must prove, among other things, that the owner had a particularized warning or actual knowledge of substantially similar prior crimes nearby, and that the attacker exploited a known physical condition of the property (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51). Seven categories of claims are barred outright (§ 51-3-54). When an attack ends in a death, the family’s wrongful death claim runs from the date of death, which can fall on the other side of April 21, 2025; see property owner liability for a death from a crime.

What an invitee must prove (§ 51-3-51)

An invitee is a person the owner, “by express or implied invitation, induces or leads … to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose” (§ 51-3-1), such as a store customer. All five of these must be proved:

1. Foreseeability of the crime. Either the owner had a “particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person”, or reasonably should have known an attack was likely based on (i) substantially similar prior incidents on the premises that the owner actually knew about, (ii) such incidents “upon the property adjoining the premises, or otherwise occurring within 500 yards of the premises”, that the owner actually knew about, or (iii) substantially similar prior conduct by the same attacker, if the owner knew or should have known “by clear and convincing evidence” that the person was or would be on the premises and actually knew about those prior occurrences.
2. Foreseeability of the injury as a consequence of that crime.
3. A known physical condition. The attack was a foreseeable result of the attacker “exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner or occupier”, which created a risk “substantially greater than the general risk of wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises”.
4. Failure of ordinary care to remedy or mitigate that condition.
5. Proximate cause.

The definitions are strict. A “particularized warning” must be specific “as to the identity of the third person, the nature and character of the wrongful conduct, the degree of dangerousness of the wrongful conduct, and the location, time, and circumstances”, and prior incidents count only if similar in “nature and character, degree of dangerousness, proximity, location, time, and circumstances” (§ 51-3-50(3), (5)).

Licensees face a higher bar (§ 51-3-52)

A licensee, such as a social guest, can rely only on a particularized warning, not on prior incidents, and must prove that the owner “willfully and wantonly failed to exercise any care” to address the known condition. The difference between invitees, licensees, and trespassers is explained in how your status affects a Georgia premises case.

Seven situations with no negligent security claim (§ 51-3-54)

1. The injured person was a trespasser.
2. The injury happened off the premises.
3. The attack did not occur on the premises “in a place from which the owner or occupier had the legal right and authority to exclude” the attacker.
4. The attacker was a tenant, or a tenant’s guest, and the owner had begun eviction proceedings against that tenant.
5. The injured person came to the premises to commit, or was committing, a felony or a misdemeanor under Chapter 8 of Title 16, with an exception for victims of human trafficking under § 16-5-46.
6. The premises is used as a single-family residence.
7. The claim rests on a particularized warning, and the owner “made any reasonable effort” to report it to law enforcement; “calling 9-1-1 or otherwise making a report … shall be deemed a reasonable effort”.

What the owner is not required to do (§ 51-3-55)

The statute says no owner must “exercise extraordinary care” or “assume the responsibilities and obligations of government for law enforcement and public safety”. In deciding breach, the jury considers the security measures in place, the need for and practicality of others, whether they would have prevented the injury, and the respective responsibilities of owners and government.

Fault must be shared with the attacker (§ 51-3-56)

The jury must reasonably apportion fault to the owner, the attacker, and anyone else at fault. If it fails to give the attacker a reasonable share, the court “shall set aside the verdict” and order a new trial on liability and damages, and an apportionment is presumed unreasonable when the attackers’ total share is less than everyone else’s combined. How this affects a family’s recovery after a death is explained in owner liability for a wrongful death caused by a crime.

Security companies and the limits of the statute

A security contractor that undertakes to keep the premises safe can be liable only “in the same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same limitations” as the owner (§ 51-3-57). The article is the “sole and exclusive remedy for negligent security against owners or occupiers”, except for claims connected to human trafficking under § 16-5-46 and claims, such as breach of contract, that do not arise under the general premises article (§ 51-3-53).

Attacks before April 21, 2025

SB 68’s Section 9 applies the new article only to causes of action arising on or after its effective date. For earlier incidents, the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael (2023) controls: foreseeability is judged on “the totality of the circumstances”, prior crimes need not be identical to be relevant, and the question is “generally reserved to the trier of fact”.

Evidence to request early

Incident reports and police call logs for the property and the area within 500 yards; any warnings the owner received; maintenance records for lighting, locks, gates, and cameras; the security contract; and lease or eviction records if the attacker was a tenant.

Sources

• O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57 (SB 68, effective April 21, 2025).
• SB 68 as passed, Georgia General Assembly
• Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, 316 Ga. 718 (2023)

General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.