Louisiana Negligent Security Lawyer

If you were assaulted, robbed, or shot on someone else’s property, the question is not simply whether security was present. Louisiana property owners and businesses are not insurers against every crime committed by a third party. Whether a negligent-security claim exists depends on the relationship between the parties, the property’s conditions and history, the foreseeability of the crime risk, and whether the injury falls within the scope of the duty owed.

An innkeeper, for example, owes guests a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect them from third-party criminal acts. See Campbell v. Orient-Express Hotels La., Inc., 403 So. 3d 573 (La. 2025). If you were harmed at a hotel, that duty applies. Liability still turns on the full duty-risk analysis, including whether the particular criminal act fell within the scope of that duty. In Campbell, the Louisiana Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment for the hotel on precisely that ground.

The Governing Standard

Louisiana’s leading case is Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 752 So. 2d 762 (La. 1999). The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a business generally does not owe a duty to protect patrons from the criminal acts of third parties. For those businesses, the duty arises when the criminal act is foreseeable. Louisiana courts treat duty and the scope of that duty as separate questions, and foreseeability often bears on whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty owed.

Foreseeability is decided using a balancing test: the foreseeability and gravity of the harm are weighed against the burden of imposing a duty to protect. The greater the foreseeability and the more serious the potential harm, the greater the duty.

What Actually Proves Foreseeability

Under Posecai, the most important factor is the existence, frequency, and similarity of prior incidents of crime on the premises. Crime statistics from the surrounding area can be relevant, but they ordinarily do not replace evidence about the subject property itself. Courts also consider the property’s location, nature, and condition.

What tends to matter:

• Prior violent crimes at that specific location, and how recent and similar they were.
• Calls for service and police reports tied to the property.
• Internal incident reports and complaints from employees or tenants.
• Whether the business itself perceived a risk — and what it did in response.

Who Can Be Responsible

These cases often involve several entities: the property owner, the business operating there, a security management company, and the company that actually supplies the guard. They are not interchangeable, and each has to be analyzed separately.

A security contractor’s exposure is generally bounded by what it undertook to do. Where a contract called for a single guard posted inside a store, a Louisiana court found no duty to patrol the parking lot, and further found no evidence of breach or causation even assuming a duty existed. See Alfred v. Walgreen La. Co., No. 2026-CA-0004 (La. App. 4 Cir. July 23, 2026). Duties can also arise outside a contract — from general negligence principles, custody of the premises, statutes, or a voluntary undertaking — so the contract is the starting point, not the whole answer.

Evidence Disappears Quickly

Surveillance footage is frequently overwritten within days or weeks. Security contracts, post orders, guard logs, and staffing schedules are in the defendants’ hands. Prior-incident data often has to be obtained from police records. Acting early is not a formality in these cases — it is often the difference between a provable claim and a lost one.

Preserve the Evidence Before It Is Lost

If you were assaulted, robbed, or injured in a shooting at a Louisiana apartment complex, hotel, bar, parking lot, store, or other property, Lavis Law Firm can review the facts and help identify records that may matter — such as surveillance video, incident reports, police records, security contracts, post orders, and staffing logs. Contact us for a confidential consultation. Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

How Long You Have to File

For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 2024, the prescriptive period for delictual actions in Louisiana is two years from the day the injury or damage is sustained. See La. C.C. art. 3493.1. Injuries before that date fall under the previous one-year period.

Where Negligent Security Claims Arise

The duty analysis turns on the property and its history rather than on the type of business, but some settings generate these claims far more often than others: apartment complexes and gated communities, hotels and short-term rentals, bars and nightclubs and their parking areas, parking garages and surface lots, gas stations and convenience stores, ATM locations, and shopping centers.

These locations differ, but they commonly involve an owner, operator, or manager that controls relevant security conditions and may be better positioned than a visitor, tenant, or guest to know of prior incidents and address known risks.

The Security Measures Courts Actually Weigh

Under the balancing test, the greater the foreseeability and gravity of the harm, the greater the burden a property owner may fairly be asked to bear. The Louisiana Supreme Court drew that line explicitly: a very high degree of foreseeability may be required before a duty to post security guards arises, while a lesser showing may support less costly measures such as improved lighting or cameras.

In practice, the measures examined include:

• Lighting in parking areas, stairwells, and walkways, including fixtures that were out and had been reported.
• Cameras, including whether they were functioning, appropriately placed, and used as part of a reasonable security plan. Evidence that cameras were non-functioning, unmonitored, or inconsistent with the property’s stated security practices may be relevant.
• Access control such as gates, fencing, door locks, and key-fob systems, and how long known failures went unrepaired.
• Security personnel, including whether guards were posted or roving, their hours against the hours crime occurred, and whether a contractor met its own written post orders.
• Sight lines, where overgrown landscaping or blind corners created concealment.

When the Attack Causes a Death

Where a criminal attack is fatal, Louisiana law creates two separate claims. The survival action under La. C.C. art. 2315.1 covers what the victim endured between injury and death, including conscious pain and suffering. The wrongful death action under La. C.C. art. 2315.2 belongs to surviving family members for their own losses. Both are limited to a defined class of beneficiaries in order of priority, beginning with a surviving spouse and children.

The deadline for these claims is not the general rule and is easy to get wrong. Both articles generally provide that the action prescribes one year from the death of the deceased, or two years from the day the injury or damage was sustained, whichever is longer. Where a victim survives for a period before dying, those two measuring points diverge, and the calculation should be confirmed against the specific dates.

How Fault Is Allocated Between the Owner and the Attacker

Property owners routinely argue that the criminal, not the owner, caused the harm. Louisiana law requires that argument to be taken seriously. La. C.C. art. 2323 requires fault to be allocated among all persons who caused or contributed to the injury, whether or not they are parties to the lawsuit and regardless of the theory of liability. See Dumas v. State ex rel. Department of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, 828 So. 2d 530 (La. 2002).

How that allocation affects your own recovery changed on 1 January 2026. For injuries sustained on or after that date, La. C.C. art. 2323(A)(2) bars recovery entirely if the injured person’s own negligence is fifty-one percent or more; below fifty-one percent, damages are reduced in proportion to that share. Article 2323(B) applies the rule to any claim for damages regardless of the theory of liability, so it reaches premises liability and negligent security claims and not only motor vehicle cases. For injuries before 1 January 2026, Louisiana’s pure comparative fault rule applies: a plaintiff’s own fault reduced the award but never barred it, however high the percentage. Act 15 of 2025 carries no applicability clause of its own, so a claim arising near that date should be discussed with a lawyer rather than assumed either way. One qualification is unresolved and may be decisive in a negligent security case. Article 2323(C) provides that, notwithstanding Paragraphs A and B, a victim’s claim is not reduced where an intentional tortfeasor contributed to the injury, and Act 15 left Paragraph C intact. Whether Paragraph C also prevents the fifty-one percent bar from applying where an intentional assailant contributed has not been decided. Do not assume the bar applies, and do not assume it cannot.

In practice, the attacker’s fault is generally quantified alongside the property owner’s, and a non-conspiring owner is ordinarily responsible only for its allocated share rather than the entire loss. See Turner v. Shop Rite, Inc., 149 So. 3d 427 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2014); Goldstein v. Chateau Orleans, Inc., 331 So. 3d 1027 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2021). Identifying every potentially responsible defendant early can matter because Louisiana generally requires fault to be allocated among all persons who caused or contributed to the injury, including an unknown intentional attacker. The attacker’s uncollectible share may reduce the amount recoverable from negligent defendants.

An older decision, Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., 650 So. 2d 712 (La. 1994), declined to compare an apartment complex’s negligent security with a rapist’s intentional act and held the complex responsible in full. Veazey applied the pre-1996 comparative-fault scheme. Under the revised Articles 2323 and 2324, fault is allocated to an intentional assailant as well as a negligent property owner, and a non-conspiring owner generally owes only its allocated share. La. C.C. art. 2324(B). Article 2323(C), however, separately protects a victim’s claim from reduction for the victim’s own negligence when an intentional tortfeasor contributed to the injury.

One significant protection remains. Article 2323(C) provides that, where an intentional tortfeasor contributed to the injury, the victim’s own negligence does not reduce the recovery. The statute says this rule applies “[n]otwithstanding” Article 2323(A) and (B), which includes Louisiana’s modified-comparative-fault provisions effective January 1, 2026. A victim’s alleged carelessness — walking to a car late at night, for example — does not automatically reduce a negligent-security claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a negligent security claim in Louisiana?

A negligent-security claim is a negligence claim based on an owner’s, operator’s, or security provider’s alleged failure to take reasonable precautions against a foreseeable criminal risk. The inquiry is fact-specific and includes the parties’ relationship, the crime history, the condition of the property, the security measures used, and whether the injury falls within the scope of the duty owed.

When does a Louisiana business owe a duty to protect customers from crime?

A business is not automatically responsible for third-party crime. Under Posecai, a duty to take security measures depends on the foreseeability and gravity of the crime risk compared with the burden of the proposed precaution. Prior incidents on the premises are particularly important, but location, nature, and condition of the property can also matter.

What evidence proves a negligent security case?

Potential evidence includes surveillance footage, police reports and calls for service, prior incident reports, tenant or employee complaints, maintenance records, security contracts, post orders, guard logs, staffing schedules, lighting records, camera records, gate or access-control records, and testimony about what the owner or operator knew.

Who can be held responsible for negligent security?

Potential defendants may include a property owner, landlord, property manager, business operator, security contractor, or security-management company. Whether a particular entity can be responsible depends on its custody or control of the property, any legal duty it owed, and the services or responsibilities it undertook.

How long do I have to file a negligent security lawsuit in Louisiana?

For a delictual claim arising on or after July 1, 2024, the general period is two years from the day injury or damage is sustained. Claims arising before that date are generally governed by the prior one-year period. Different timing rules may apply to particular claims, parties, or circumstances, including death claims.

Does it matter that the attacker was never caught or convicted?

No. The absence of an arrest or criminal conviction does not by itself prevent a civil negligent-security claim. A civil case can still examine the criminal event, the foreseeability of the risk, the security measures in place, and the fault of each person or entity that contributed to the injury.

Talk to a Louisiana Negligent Security Lawyer

If you or a family member was harmed by violence at an apartment complex, parking lot, bar, hotel, or store, contact Lavis Law Firm to discuss whether the property owner or its contractors may bear responsibility.

Related Pages

• Louisiana Dog Bite Lawyer — dog-owner liability under La. C.C. art. 2321.
• New Orleans Car Accident Attorney