Can a Property Owner Be Liable for a Wrongful Death from a Crime on Their Property in Georgia?
On this page
Yes, but for a death from an attack on or after April 21, 2025, only under Georgia’s negligent security statute, O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57, which now is “the sole and exclusive remedy” against owners and occupiers, apart from the narrow exceptions in § 51-3-53. The family must meet that statute’s foreseeability proof, and the jury must assign a reasonable share of fault to the person who committed the crime. When the attack and the death both came before that date, the prior case law governs; when the attack came before it and the death after, the timing question below is unsettled.
Which law applies depends on when the claim arose
SB 68 took effect April 21, 2025, and its Section 9 applies the negligent security article “only with respect to causes of action arising on or after the effective date”. Older claims are “governed by prior law”. A wrongful death claim runs from the date of death, so when the attack and the death fall on the same side of April 21, 2025, the answer is clear. When the attack came before that date and the death after it, the statute’s text does not say which date controls; check that question against current Georgia decisions before relying on either set of rules.
| Attack and death before April 21, 2025 | Attack and death on or after April 21, 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Source of the rule | § 51-3-1 premises duty and case law | §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57 |
| Foreseeability | "The totality of the circumstances", with substantially similar prior crimes relevant but not required to be identical (Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, 2023) | A particularized warning, or prior substantially similar crimes the owner actually knew about on the premises, adjoining property, or within 500 yards, or the same attacker's prior similar conduct under stricter conditions (§ 51-3-51) |
| Fault of the criminal | May be apportioned (Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 2012); a verdict giving the shooter no fault was upheld in Carmichael | Must be reasonably apportioned; presumption of an unreasonable verdict if the criminals' total share is less than everyone else's (§ 51-3-56) |
The full set of elements and exclusions under the 2025 statute is explained in property owner liability for an attack by someone else.
How apportionment changes what a family receives
A wrongful death claim seeks “the full value of the life of the decedent” (§ 51-4-1). In a negligent security case, the property owner pays only its own percentage of fault, because damages apportioned under § 51-12-33 “shall be the liability of each person against whom they are awarded” and are “not … a joint liability”. Under the 2025 statute the jury must reasonably apportion fault among the owner, “any third person whose wrongful conduct was a cause of the injury”, and anyone else at fault (§ 51-3-56(1)).
Two rules make that apportionment decisive:
- The retrial rule. If the jury “fails … to apportion a reasonable degree of fault to the third person whose wrongful conduct was a cause of the injury”, the trial court “shall set aside the verdict of the jury and order a retrial of liability and damages”, and an apportionment is presumed unreasonable if all criminal actors together receive less fault than the owners, security contractors, and other non-criminal parties together (§ 51-3-56(3)).
- What the jury may not hear. No party may tell jurors about the criminal’s sentence or punishment, any party’s or nonparty’s financial resources, or “the effect of an apportionment of fault upon any award of damages to the plaintiff” (§ 51-3-56(2)).
For example, imagine a jury values a life at $5 million and assigns 60 percent of the fault to the shooter and 40 percent to the apartment owner. The family’s judgment against the owner is $2 million; the $3 million apportioned to the shooter is collectible only from the shooter. The jury will not have been told that consequence.
Carmichael shows the contrast with older cases: a man was shot during an armed robbery at his car in a CVS store’s parking lot, the jury found CVS 95 percent at fault, the injured man 5 percent, and the shooter 0 percent, and the Supreme Court held the verdict was not inconsistent under the instructions given. For an incident on or after April 21, 2025, a verdict like that would trigger the presumption in § 51-3-56(3).
Who brings the claims after a fatal attack
The wrongful death claim belongs to the surviving spouse, then the children, then the parents, and otherwise to the estate’s representative for the next of kin; see who can file a wrongful death lawsuit in Georgia. The estate separately holds any claim for the person’s pain and suffering before death and, because the death resulted from a crime, funeral and medical expenses (§ 51-4-5(b)).
Deadlines that run during a prosecution
The family’s wrongful death claim must be filed within two years of the death even while the criminal case is pending; the crime-victim tolling statute does not extend it for the family (Hicks v. Universal Health Services, 2022). See filing a wrongful death lawsuit after a criminal death.
Sources
- O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-1, 51-3-50 through 51-3-57, 51-4-1, 51-4-5, 51-12-33.
- SB 68 as passed, Georgia General Assembly
- Georgia CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, 316 Ga. 718 (2023)
- Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 291 Ga. 359 (2012)
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.