When property owners cut corners on security and someone gets assaulted, robbed, or attacked as a result, the property owner shares responsibility. If inadequate security at an apartment complex, parking garage, hotel, or business contributed to the crime against you, we fight for justice.
Get Your Free Case EvaluationNo fees unless we win • Confidential • Response in 24 hours
Negligent security cases arise wherever property owners have a duty to protect people from foreseeable criminal acts — and fail to do so.
Parking garages and lots are high-risk environments for criminal attacks due to isolated locations, limited visibility, and predictable patterns of use. Property owners who fail to provide adequate lighting, functioning security cameras, emergency call stations, security patrols, and controlled access create conditions where criminals can attack with impunity. Assaults, robberies, carjackings, and sexual assaults in parking structures are foreseeable — and preventable with reasonable security measures.
Apartment complexes owe their tenants a duty to provide reasonable security, especially when prior criminal incidents have occurred on the property. Broken gate locks allowing unrestricted access, non-functional security cameras, burned-out exterior lighting, failure to screen maintenance personnel with building access, and absence of security patrols in high-crime areas all constitute negligent security. Tenants who are assaulted, robbed, or burglarized due to these failures have strong claims against complex owners and management companies.
Hotels and motels owe guests a heightened duty of care as innkeepers under Washington law. This includes maintaining functioning room locks and deadbolts, restricting key card access to registered guests, providing adequate hallway and parking lot lighting, and employing security measures proportional to the property's crime risk. When guests are assaulted, robbed, or attacked in their rooms, hallways, or parking areas due to inadequate security, the hotel can be held liable for the resulting injuries and trauma.
Bars, nightclubs, and entertainment venues operate in inherently higher-risk environments where alcohol consumption increases the likelihood of violence. These establishments have a duty to employ adequate security personnel, monitor patron behavior, intervene in escalating confrontations, control capacity, and maintain safe premises. When bouncers fail to act, management ignores known troublemakers, or the establishment lacks sufficient security staff for its crowd size, the business can be held liable for assaults that result.
Retail stores, convenience stores, and gas stations — particularly those operating during late-night hours — face foreseeable risks of armed robbery and violence against customers and employees. Property owners and businesses that fail to install security cameras, provide adequate lighting, employ security guards, install bullet-resistant barriers, or implement cash management protocols to reduce robbery incentives can be held liable when customers or employees are injured during criminal incidents that reasonable security measures would have deterred or mitigated.
Employers and building owners have a duty to protect employees and visitors from foreseeable workplace violence. This includes implementing access control systems, screening visitors, providing security in reception areas, addressing known threats from terminated employees or domestic violence situations that follow victims to work, and maintaining emergency protocols. When a workplace attack occurs and the employer or building owner failed to take reasonable precautions despite known risks, they can be held liable for the resulting injuries.
The central question in every negligent security case is foreseeability — was the criminal act that caused your injury reasonably foreseeable to the property owner? If yes, the property owner had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent it. If the property owner failed to take those steps, that failure constitutes negligence.
Washington courts evaluate foreseeability based on the totality of circumstances, including:
Once foreseeability is established, the analysis shifts to whether the property owner implemented reasonable security measures proportional to the known risk. A property with a documented history of violent crime that relies solely on a single broken security camera has clearly failed to meet its duty.
Negligent security claims are a subset of premises liability, but they present unique challenges because the immediate cause of injury is a criminal act by a third party. The property owner's liability rests on the argument that their failure to provide adequate security was a substantial factor in enabling the crime. Here is how we build these cases.
Under Washington premises liability law, property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to people lawfully on their property. For negligent security, this duty extends to protecting against foreseeable criminal acts. The scope of the duty depends on the relationship between the property owner and the victim (tenant, customer, hotel guest, employee), the type of property, and the foreseeability of criminal activity. Business invitees (customers, hotel guests) are owed the highest duty. Tenants are owed both the general premises liability duty and specific duties under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18).
We retain security consultants and experts who evaluate the property's security measures against industry standards and the known risk level. These experts assess lighting levels, camera coverage and functionality, access control systems, guard staffing and patrol patterns, alarm systems, and compliance with applicable codes. The expert then provides an opinion on whether the security measures in place were reasonable given the foreseeable risks — and what additional measures should have been implemented.
The defense will argue that the criminal is solely responsible for the victim's injuries. To overcome this, we must demonstrate that the property owner's security failures were a substantial factor in enabling the criminal act. This can be shown by proving that better lighting would have deterred the attacker or allowed the victim to see and avoid the threat, that functioning cameras would have deterred the crime, that controlled access would have prevented the attacker from entering the property, or that security patrols would have detected and intervened in the attack.
Washington follows a pure comparative fault system under RCW 4.22. In negligent security cases, the jury can apportion fault among the criminal attacker, the property owner, and any other responsible parties (such as a security company that failed to perform its contractual duties). The victim's recovery is reduced by their own percentage of fault, if any, but they are not barred from recovery. Importantly, the property owner can be held liable for their share of fault even though the criminal committed the actual attack.
Negligent security cases require a unique combination of legal skill, investigative speed, and expert resources. Here is what we bring to every case.
Surveillance footage is overwritten in days. Security logs are discarded. Properties are quickly "improved" to eliminate evidence of prior inadequacy. We send immediate preservation demand letters, engage forensic data recovery specialists, and work with investigators to document the scene before evidence is lost. In negligent security cases, the first 72 hours are the most critical.
We retain certified security consultants, former law enforcement professionals, and criminologists who evaluate whether the property's security measures met industry standards given the known risk level. These experts analyze lighting, camera systems, access control, guard protocols, and crime patterns to establish that the property owner failed to provide reasonable security.
We use police call data, crime mapping tools, incident reports, and statistical analysis to establish the pattern of criminal activity at and around the property. This evidence is the foundation of the foreseeability argument — proving that the property owner knew or should have known that criminal activity was likely and failed to act.
You pay nothing upfront. We advance all costs for investigation, security experts, crime data analysis, medical records, and litigation. Our fee is contingent on recovery — if we don't win your case, you owe us nothing. Negligent security cases involve significant upfront investigation costs, and we fund them because we believe in holding property owners accountable.
We handle the legal fight so you can focus on healing.
Tell us what happened — where the attack occurred, the security conditions at the property, and whether you have any knowledge of prior criminal incidents. We assess viability and give you an honest answer within 24 hours. Completely confidential.
We immediately send preservation demand letters to the property owner, security company, and any third parties that may possess surveillance footage, incident reports, or security logs. We dispatch investigators to document the scene, assess security measures, and interview witnesses before evidence is lost.
We obtain police reports, crime data for the property and surrounding area, prior incident records, security contracts, and maintenance logs. Our security experts evaluate the property's measures against industry standards and provide opinions on what reasonable security would have looked like — and how it would have prevented or deterred the attack.
We present a comprehensive demand to the property owner's insurer backed by expert analysis, crime data, medical documentation, and evidence of inadequate security. If the insurer refuses fair compensation, we file suit and prepare for trial. Property owners who cut corners on security must face the consequences.
Future Legal PLLC represents victims of assault, robbery, and attacks caused by inadequate security throughout Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, and the greater Thurston County area. As Washington's capital city, Olympia has a mix of commercial districts, apartment complexes, entertainment venues, government buildings, and retail centers — all of which carry duties to provide reasonable security for the people who use them.
The downtown Olympia corridor, the Capitol Campus area, Martin Way commercial strip in Lacey, Tumwater Town Center, and the various apartment complexes serving the region's growing population all present security challenges. When property owners and businesses in these areas fail to provide adequate lighting, cameras, access control, and security presence — despite knowledge of criminal activity in the area — they put people at risk. Victims of attacks in parking garages, apartment complexes, hotels, bars, and retail stores deserve legal representation that understands both the criminal justice system and the civil liability framework.
We serve clients across Thurston County including Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Yelm, Rainier, Tenino, and surrounding communities. We also handle negligent security cases from Centralia, Shelton, and other South Sound communities. If you were attacked due to inadequate security, contact us for a free, confidential case evaluation.
This page is part of our Olympia premises liability practice. We also represent clients in medical malpractice and dog bite cases throughout Thurston County.
Tell us about the attack, the property where it occurred, and the security conditions. A member of our team will review your case and respond within 24 hours. Everything you share is confidential.