Can a Property Owner Be Liable for a Wrongful Death from a Crime on Their Property in Georgia?

A killing committed by a criminal on someone else’s property, an apartment complex, a parking lot, a store, may let the family hold the property owner responsible, separately from the criminal. This is where wrongful death law and premises liability for negligent security intersect, and Georgia’s 2025 tort reform significantly narrowed these claims. This guide explains the premises owner’s potential liability, foreseeability and prior crimes, connecting negligent security to a death, and the new statutory framework.

The Premises Owner’s Potential Liability

A wrongful death caused by a crime on a property can give rise to a negligent security claim against the property owner or occupier. The theory is a form of premises liability: an owner who could reasonably foresee criminal conduct and failed to take ordinary measures to guard against it may be liable when that foreseeable crime kills a lawful visitor. This is the wrongful death application of the negligent security framework addressed in the related premises liability post.

The owner is not pursued for committing the crime, but for its own negligence in failing to provide reasonable security against a foreseeable danger. The defendants in these cases can include the property owner, a property management company, and sometimes a contracted security company, depending on who controlled the premises and the security arrangements. Because a fatal shooting or assault often involves a perpetrator who cannot pay, the claim against the property owner is frequently where a wrongful death recovery becomes meaningful.

Foreseeability and Prior Crimes (Narrowed Under SB 68)

Foreseeability is the heart of these claims, and it is where Georgia law changed dramatically in 2025. Historically, foreseeability could be shown through a broad totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, and the Georgia Supreme Court had confirmed that prior crimes need not be identical to the crime at issue to make it foreseeable. Under that older approach, a history of criminal activity on or near the property could establish that a violent crime was foreseeable.

The 2025 tort reform narrowed this considerably. For incidents on or after the reform’s effective date, foreseeability is now defined much more strictly, generally requiring a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct or actual knowledge of substantially similar prior conduct on the premises, on adjoining property, or within a defined distance. General awareness that an area has crime is no longer enough. This is a significant tightening, and it means the date of the incident matters greatly: older incidents fall under the more flexible prior law, while newer ones face the stricter standard.

Connecting Negligent Security to a Death

To succeed in a wrongful death negligent security case, the family must connect the owner’s security failure to the death. This means showing that the crime was foreseeable under the applicable standard, that the owner failed to exercise ordinary care to address the risk, and that this failure was a proximate cause of the death.

Evidence in these cases often focuses on what the owner knew and what it did. This can include the history of prior incidents on or near the property, the condition of security measures such as lighting, gates, cameras, and guards, and whether known problems were ignored. Common scenarios include a tenant or visitor killed in an apartment complex parking lot with a history of violent crime and inoperative security measures, or a customer killed at a business in a high-crime area with no meaningful security presence. The question is always whether reasonable security, in light of a foreseeable risk, would have prevented the death.

The New § 51-3-50 to 51-3-57 Framework and Apportionment

Georgia’s 2025 reform created a dedicated statutory framework for negligent security, codified at O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57, that governs these claims for qualifying incidents. Beyond tightening foreseeability, it changed how fault is divided in a way that directly affects wrongful death recoveries.

Under the new framework, the jury must apportion fault among the property owner or occupier, the criminal who committed the act, and any other responsible party. Critically, a meaningful share of fault must be assigned to the actual perpetrator, and there is a rebuttable presumption that an apportionment is unreasonable if the perpetrator is assigned less fault than the combined fault of the owner and other non-criminal parties. A verdict that fails to assign the perpetrator a reasonable share can be set aside. The practical effect is that the property owner’s share of the wrongful death recovery, and thus what the family collects from the owner, may be reduced by the fault allocated to the criminal. The framework also includes exclusions barring certain claims. Because all of this turns on whether the incident falls under the new prospective framework or the older law, and on the specific facts of foreseeability and fault, these cases require careful analysis of both the timeline and the evidence.

Key Takeaways

• A wrongful death from a crime on a property can support a negligent security claim against the owner, separate from the perpetrator, where the crime was foreseeable and security was inadequate.
• Georgia’s 2025 reform sharply narrowed foreseeability, replacing the broad totality-of-the-circumstances approach with a stricter standard for incidents on or after the effective date.
• The family must connect the owner’s security failure to the death, showing foreseeability, a failure of ordinary care, and proximate causation.
• The new framework (O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 to 51-3-57) requires apportioning meaningful fault to the perpetrator, which can reduce the owner’s share of a wrongful death recovery.

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.