Florida Negligent Security Defense
Defending a Florida negligent-security claim relies on the 2023 statute giving multifamily-residential owners a presumption against liability if they substantially implement specified security measures (Fla. Stat. § 768.0706), the foreseeability requirement, and apportioning fault to the criminal perpetrator under comparative-fault rules.
By Find Local Law Editorial Team · Last reviewed: May 25, 2026
Researched and drafted with AI assistance and verified against primary sources (statutes, Judicial Council forms, and official court websites). This is general information, not legal advice.
This is general information, not legal advice, and the 2023 presumption is new and still being interpreted — talk to a Florida defense attorney.
Negligent-security claims — where a victim of a crime on a property sues the owner for inadequate security — got significantly more defensible in Florida in 2023.
The 2023 multifamily presumption (§ 768.0706)
Florida’s tort reform created a presumption against liability for owners and operators of multifamily residential property (apartment complexes) for injuries from a third party’s criminal act, if the owner substantially implements specified security measures, including:
- Security cameras retaining footage for at least 30 days;
- Adequate parking-lot and common-area lighting;
- One-inch deadbolts, window/door locks, and door viewers;
- A crime-prevention-through-environmental-design (CPTED) assessment; and
- Employee crime-deterrence training.
For a complying owner, the documentation of compliance becomes the centerpiece of the defense. The presumption is rebuttable, and “substantially implement” is not yet heavily litigated — so this is evolving.
Foreseeability and apportioning fault
Even outside the presumption, negligent-security defense relies on:
- Foreseeability — was the criminal attack reasonably foreseeable (e.g., prior similar crimes on the premises)? If not, there may be no duty to guard against it.
- Reasonable security — showing adequate measures were in place.
- Apportioning fault to the criminal — under Florida’s comparative-fault system (§ 768.81), the perpetrator’s fault can be allocated, reducing the owner’s share.
To get matched with a local Florida defense attorney, connect with a lawyer.
Connect with a local attorney
Tell us about your situation and we'll match you with a local California attorney who handles matters like yours. Free, no obligation.
Start your free intakeFrequently asked questions
- How does the 2023 law help property owners defend these claims?
- Fla. Stat. § 768.0706 gives owners of multifamily residential property a presumption against liability for a third party's criminal act if they substantially implement listed security measures — cameras, lighting, deadbolts, a CPTED assessment, and staff training.
- What else defeats a negligent-security claim?
- Showing the criminal attack was not foreseeable (no similar prior crimes, no notice of danger), that reasonable security existed, and that the fault belongs to the criminal actor — whose fault can be apportioned under Florida's comparative-fault system.
- Is the 2023 presumption a guarantee?
- No — it's a rebuttable presumption, and because the statute is new, 'substantially implement' hasn't been heavily tested by appellate courts yet. Compliance documentation matters.
Sources
Related guides
- Florida Bar & Nightclub Defense Florida is a vendor-protective dram-shop state: a bar or nightclub that serves alcohol to an adult is generally not liable for injuries that person later causes (Fla. Stat. § 768.125), with only two narrow exceptions. Establishments also defend premises and security claims using the notice requirement, comparative fault, and the negligent-security presumption.
- Florida Car Accident Defense Defending a Florida car accident claim leans on three things: the no-fault/PIP system and the serious-injury threshold (a plaintiff must clear it to recover pain-and-suffering damages), modified comparative negligence to allocate fault to the plaintiff or others, and the two-year filing deadline.
- Florida Car Accident Subrogation Defense After a Florida crash, insurers that paid benefits — PIP carriers, health insurers, and others — may seek subrogation or reimbursement out of the injured person's recovery. Defending these auto-specific claims means verifying the payer's right and notice, applying the collateral source rule (Fla. Stat. § 768.76), and negotiating the amount.
- Florida Civil Battery Defense Civil battery in Florida is a common-law intentional tort (the criminal analog is Fla. Stat. § 784.03). Defenses include consent, self-defense, and defense of others. A key practical issue: because battery requires intent, standard liability insurance often excludes it, so a defendant may face no insurer-funded defense or coverage.
- Florida Dog Bite Defense Florida imposes strict liability on dog owners (Fla. Stat. § 767.04), but defenses remain: the victim's comparative fault reduces recovery, a prominently displayed 'Bad Dog' sign can limit liability (except against young children or where the owner was negligent), and the victim must have been lawfully present.
- Florida Pre-Suit Injury Defense Much of injury defense happens before a lawsuit is filed. In Florida that includes the PIP pre-suit demand process (Fla. Stat. § 627.736(10)), early investigation and evidence preservation, and navigating the post-HB 837 bad-faith framework (Fla. Stat. § 624.155), which now requires more than mere negligence and gives insurers a tender safe harbor.