You are walking from your car to your apartment at night or stopping at a gas station on the way home when someone attacks you in a dark corner of the property. Negligent security law decides whether the business or property owner can be held responsible for not doing enough to protect you from foreseeable crime. In 2025, Georgia’s SB 68 kept these claims alive but tightened when crime victims can win and gave new protections to owners and their security contractors.
Negligent security is a type of premises liability claim about criminal acts—assaults, robberies, shootings—that happen on someone else’s property when better security could have reduced the risk. Before SB 68, Georgia appellate decisions had broadened liability in many of these cases, especially around apartments, hotels, and shopping areas in high‑crime corridors. SB 68 largely replaces that judge‑made law with detailed statutory rules and ties liability to what the owner actually knew or should have known about specific risks on the property.
Under the new law, a crime victim must show the criminal act was “reasonably foreseeable” in a narrow, defined way. It is not enough that the neighborhood has crime in general. The owner usually must have actual knowledge of prior, substantially similar crimes on or near the property, or a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct. Prior crimes within a specified distance can count toward foreseeability, but they must be meaningfully similar to the attack in time, place, and type. In practice, that makes foreseeability harder to prove than under the older, looser standards.
SB 68 also cares about how the criminal used the property itself. For an owner to be liable, the crime has to be a reasonably foreseeable result of someone exploiting a specific physical condition the owner knew about—broken gates, non‑functioning lights, doors that do not lock, or similar problems. The victim has to connect the dots between that unfixed condition and the way the criminal took advantage of it. Inspection records, maintenance logs, prior complaints, and police calls now play an outsized role in deciding whether a case even reaches a jury.
The statute keeps Georgia’s invitee, licensee, and trespasser categories but tightens how they work in negligent security cases. Invitees—customers, hotel guests, residents and their guests—can still bring negligent security claims if they satisfy the new foreseeability and premises‑condition rules and show the owner failed to use ordinary care. Licensees, such as social guests not there for the owner’s commercial benefit, can only recover for negligent security in more limited situations, often requiring proof of a particular warning of imminent wrongful conduct and a near‑total failure by the owner to respond. Trespassers, some evicted tenants, people injured off the premises, certain criminal entrants, and many single‑family situations are now expressly cut off from negligent security liability altogether.
Fault apportionment is another big shift. Juries must allocate fault in negligent security cases among the owner or occupier, the third‑party wrongdoer, and any other responsible actors. If a jury assigns more fault to the owner than to the criminal, SB 68 presumes that split is unreasonable and can require a new trial on liability and damages. That makes it much harder to sustain a verdict that heavily punishes a business while giving only token blame to the person who actually committed the crime.
SB 68 also gives owners several shields if they take certain steps. If an owner calls law enforcement after receiving a concrete warning of imminent wrongful conduct, they may get immunity from negligent security liability for what happens next. Other provisions work like safe harbors: if an owner can show compliance with defined security measures—lighting, cameras, access controls, or similar standards—courts may presume the security was reasonable absent strong contrary proof. These protections are powerful, but only if owners can document what they did and when.
For crime victims, the new law makes careful evidence‑gathering and early legal advice critical. A viable case usually needs more than medical records and witness statements. It may require proof of prior similar crimes near the property, photos or videos showing defective conditions, and copies of complaints, police reports, or emails showing the owner was warned and failed to act. Without that kind of record, more negligent security suits will be dismissed at an early stage for not meeting SB 68’s foreseeability and premises‑condition standards.
For property owners and managers, SB 68 is both a shield and a warning. It narrows when they can be held liable, but it also spells out what courts will look for: regular inspections, prompt repair of broken locks and lights, security measures that match the property’s risks, timely calls to law enforcement when threats emerge, and written policies staff actually follow. Those habits reduce the chance of crime and build the paper trail that can defeat weak negligent security claims or keep them from ever reaching a jury.
Georgia’s negligent security landscape after the 2025 reforms demands more from everyone. Victims must meet stricter standards to show an attack was foreseeable and tied to a known, unfixed security problem, while owners and insurers now have clearer rules—and more opportunities—to argue that responsibility rests mainly with the criminal. In this environment, owners should invest in and document reasonable security, and victims should preserve evidence and get informed legal advice as soon as possible after an incident.
Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and is
not intended to serve as legal advice. While I am a paralegal, I am not a licensed attorney, and the content shared here should not be construed as such.
No attorney-client relationship is formed through the use of this blog or by any communication with me. For specific legal advice tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction. Laws change frequently and may vary by county or city; this blog reflects a general understanding of Georgia law as of the date of publication.
I strive to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up-to-date; however, I make no representations or warranties regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of any information contained on this blog. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.
Thank you for visiting my blog, and please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments!