Georgia Supreme Court Ruling Expands Liability in Negligent Security Premises Liability Cases: What It Means for Property Owners

In today’s world, safety and security are paramount, especially when we visit businesses or reside in apartment complexes. Property owners have a responsibility to ensure their premises are safe for visitors and residents. However, the scope of this responsibility has been a subject of ongoing legal debate. A recent Georgia Supreme Court ruling has significantly expanded the liability of property owners in negligent security cases, sending ripples through the business and real estate sectors. This blog post will delve into the details of this landmark ruling and explore its implications for property owners in Georgia.

Understanding Negligent Security and Premises Liability

Premises liability law dictates that property owners have a duty to maintain a safe environment for individuals who are legally on their property. This duty extends to protecting invitees (customers, guests, or residents) from foreseeable criminal acts. Negligent security falls under this umbrella, referring to situations where a property owner’s failure to provide adequate security measures leads to a third party being injured due to criminal activity.

What constitutes “adequate” security? This is where things get complex. It can include things like:

Adequate lighting
Security cameras
Security personnel
Properly functioning locks and alarm systems
Warning visitors of foreseeable dangers

The Landmark Georgia Supreme Court Ruling

The Georgia Supreme Court recently altered the scope of liability for proprietors, occupiers, and security contractors in negligent security premises liability cases. In a ruling stemming from CVS Pharmacy, LLC v. Carmichael, Welch et al. v. Pappas Restaurants, Inc., and Welch et al. v. Tactical Security Group, LLC, the court shifted away from the long-held “substantially similar prior crimes” standard.

The “Totality of the Circumstances” Test:

Under this new ruling, premises owners and occupiers no longer need to have knowledge of a substantially similar prior crime to be charged with a duty to protect its invitees from third-party criminal acts. Instead, the court invoked a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether third-party criminal acts were reasonably foreseeable. This means that foreseeability can be established by considering various factors, including:

Prior crimes on or near the premises
The location of the property in a high-crime area
The property owner’s knowledge of a “volatile situation brewing on the premises”

Implications for Property Owners

This ruling has significant implications for Georgia businesses and property owners, especially those in areas with higher crime rates. Here’s what you need to know:

Increased Liability: Property owners may face increased liability for criminal acts on their property, even if there’s no history of similar crimes occurring there.
More Cases Going to Trial: It will likely be more difficult for property owners to win summary judgments in negligent security cases, meaning more cases will proceed to trial.
Greater Scrutiny of Security Measures: Juries will now decide “whether the proprietor’s security measures were reasonable, even though the criminal act was reasonably foreseeable.”
Impact on Insurance: This ruling is expected to encourage negligent security premises issues to be decided by juries, evidence of serious prior crimes or dangerous conditions on the property will increase the risk to proprietors.

Practical Steps for Property Owners

Given this expanded liability, what steps can property owners take to protect themselves and their invitees?

Conduct a Security Assessment: A comprehensive security assessment can help identify vulnerabilities and areas for improvement.
Enhance Security Measures: Based on the assessment, implement appropriate security measures, such as improved lighting, security cameras, and security personnel.
Maintain Records: Keep detailed records of all security measures, incidents, and complaints.
Train Employees: Ensure employees are trained to recognize and respond to potential security threats.
Review Insurance Coverage: Review your insurance policies to ensure you have adequate coverage for negligent security claims.
Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with an attorney to understand your legal obligations and develop strategies to minimize your risk.

Recent Tort Reform Legislation

It’s important to note that while the Georgia Supreme Court ruling expanded liability, recent tort reform legislation in Georgia seeks to address some of the concerns raised by businesses and property owners.

Senate Bill 68, signed into law in April 2025, introduces several changes aimed at creating a more balanced legal landscape. Some key provisions include:

New Standards for Negligent Security: The law formally defines negligent security claims, requiring plaintiffs to prove foreseeability through specific warnings, prior similar crimes, or the perpetrator’s criminal history.
Limits on Special Damages: The Act limits recovery of special damages for medical expenses to “the reasonable value of medically necessary care, treatment, or services”.
Bifurcated Trials: The Act allows for trials in negligence lawsuits to be bifurcated, meaning that trials will be split into two phases: one to determine liability and one to determine the amount of damages.

This legislation aims to narrow the circumstances under which a property owner can be held liable for third-party criminal acts, providing some relief from the expanded liability imposed by the Supreme Court ruling.

The Importance of Foreseeability

Even with the tort reform measures, foreseeability remains a critical element in negligent security cases. Property owners are not expected to be clairvoyant, but they are expected to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable dangers.

Factors that can establish foreseeability:

Prior “substantially similar” crimes on the property or in the nearby vicinity
The location of the property in a high-crime area
Knowledge of a “volatile situation brewing on the premises”

The “Judicial Hellhole” Reputation and Tort Reform

Georgia has been labeled a “Judicial Hellhole” due to its history of nuclear verdicts and an environment perceived as unfavorable to defendants in civil litigation. The recent tort reform legislation, including SB 68, represents an effort to address this reputation and create a more balanced civil justice system.

Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling on negligent security has expanded the liability of property owners, requiring them to take a more proactive approach to security. While recent tort reform legislation seeks to provide some balance, property owners must remain vigilant in assessing and addressing potential security risks. By taking appropriate steps to protect their invitees, property owners can minimize their liability and create a safer environment for everyone.