Providing helpful free information about Georgia’s personal injury laws.

Georgia Negligent Security Law After SB 68 (2025)

  • Home
  • Georgia Negligent Security Law After SB 68 (2025)

If you were attacked, robbed, or shot on someone else’s property, you may have a “negligent security” claim against the owner. Senate Bill 68 made these claims much harder to win. For crimes on or after April 21, 2025, you must meet a strict five-part test set out in new Code Sections 51-3-50 through 51-3-57.

What the Law Says

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-50, Definitions, states in part:

As used in this article, the term:

(1) ‘Negligent security’ means any claim against an owner or occupier, or against a security contractor, that:

(A) Sounds in tort or nuisance, including, but not limited to, any claim under Article 1 of this chapter;

(B) Seeks to recover damages for bodily injury or wrongful death; and

(C) Arises from an alleged failure to keep the premises and approaches safe from the wrongful conduct of third persons.

(3) ‘Particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person’ means information actually known to an owner or occupier and deemed credible by the owner or occupier, which causes the owner or occupier to consciously understand that a third person is likely to imminently engage in wrongful conduct on the premises that poses a clear danger to the safety of persons upon the premises, such information being specific as to the identity of the third person, the nature and character of the wrongful conduct, the degree of dangerousness of the wrongful conduct, and the location, time, and circumstances of the wrongful conduct.

(5) ‘Prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct’ means prior occurrences of wrongful conduct which are sufficiently similar in nature and character, degree of dangerousness, proximity, location, time, and circumstances to the wrongful conduct from which a claim of negligent security arises to lead a reasonable person in the position of the owner or occupier to apprehend that such wrongful conduct is reasonably likely to occur upon the premises, to understand the risk of injury to persons upon the premises presented by such wrongful conduct, and to understand that a specific and known physical condition of the premises has created a risk of such wrongful conduct on the premises that is substantially greater than the general risk of such wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises.

(8) ‘Wrongful conduct’ means:

(A) Any violation of a law of this state or an ordinance of any political subdivision thereof that is punishable as a felony or misdemeanor, regardless of whether such violation results in an arrest, citation, accusation, indictment, or conviction; or

(B) Any other conduct that amounts to an intentional, or willful and wanton, tort.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51, Liability to invitees, states:

Except as provided in Code Section 51-3-54, an owner or occupier shall be liable for negligent security arising from any injury sustained by any person upon the premises of the owner or occupier as an invitee if the plaintiff proves that:

(1) The wrongful conduct by a third person that caused the injury sustained by the invitee was reasonably foreseeable because the owner or occupier:

(A) Had particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person; or

(B) Reasonably should have known that a third person was reasonably likely to engage in such wrongful conduct upon the premises, based on:

(i) Prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct upon the premises of which the owner or occupier had actual knowledge;

(ii) Prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct upon the property adjoining the premises, or otherwise occurring within 500 yards of the premises, of which the owner or occupier had actual knowledge; or

(iii) Prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct by the third person whose wrongful conduct caused the injury, if the owner or occupier knew or should have known, by clear and convincing evidence, that such third person was or would be upon the premises and if the owner or occupier had actual knowledge of such prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct;

(2) The injury sustained by the invitee was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such wrongful conduct by a third person;

(3) Such wrongful conduct by a third person was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such third person exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner or occupier, which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of wrongful conduct on the premises that was substantially greater than the general risk of wrongful conduct in the vicinity of the premises;

(4) The owner or occupier failed to exercise ordinary care to remedy or mitigate such specific and known physical condition of the premises and to otherwise keep the premises safe from such wrongful conduct by a third person; and

(5) Such failure of the owner or occupier to exercise ordinary care was a proximate cause of the injury sustained by the invitee.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-54, Exceptions to liability, states in part:

Notwithstanding Code Sections 51-3-51 and 51-3-52, no owner or occupier shall be liable for negligent security:

(1) Arising from an injury sustained by a person upon the premises of the owner or occupier as a trespasser;

(6) Arising from an injury sustained upon premises that is used as a single-family residence; or

(7) Based on a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct by a third person, if the owner or occupier made any reasonable effort to provide such information to law enforcement personnel, provided that calling 9-1-1 or otherwise making a report about such information to law enforcement personnel shall be deemed a reasonable effort.

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-56, Apportionment of fault, states in part:

(3) If a jury fails as the trier of fact to apportion a reasonable degree of fault to the third person whose wrongful conduct was a cause of the injury from which the claim of negligent security arises, the trial court shall set aside the verdict of the jury and order a retrial of liability and damages. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an apportionment of fault is unreasonable if the total percentage of fault apportioned to all third persons for their wrongful conduct is less than the total percentage of fault apportioned to all owners or occupiers, security contractors, and other persons and entities that did not engage in wrongful conduct.

You can read the full statutes on the Georgia General Assembly’s official code site. These sections come from Senate Bill 68 (2025), Section 6.

In Plain English

A negligent security case says a property owner should have done more to protect you from a criminal. Common examples are a shooting at an apartment complex, a robbery in a dark parking lot, or an assault at a gas station. Before 2025, these cases followed the general premises liability statute and court decisions. SB 68 replaced that with a detailed code of its own.

Section 51-3-53 says the new article is the “sole and exclusive remedy.” That means you cannot use older, easier theories to get around it. The main exception is for victims of human trafficking under Code Section 16-5-46.

If you were an invitee, such as a customer or tenant guest, you must prove all five parts of section 51-3-51. First, the crime was foreseeable. You show this in one of two ways. Either the owner had a “particularized warning” of the specific crime about to happen. Or the owner actually knew about similar crimes on the property, next door, or within 500 yards. The definition of “similar” is strict. It looks at the type of crime, how dangerous it was, where it happened, and when.

Second, your injury was a foreseeable result of that crime. Third, the criminal took advantage of a “specific physical condition” of the property that the owner knew about. Think of a broken gate, no lighting, or a missing lock. The condition must have made crime much more likely there than in the surrounding area. Fourth, the owner failed to use ordinary care to fix the problem. Fifth, that failure caused your injury.

If you were a licensee, such as a social guest, the bar is higher. Under section 51-3-52, you must prove the owner had a particularized warning. Prior similar crimes are not enough. And the owner must have acted “willfully and wantonly,” not just carelessly.

Section 51-3-54 lists who cannot recover at all. Trespassers cannot. People hurt off the property cannot. There is no claim for injuries at a single-family home. There is no claim if you came to commit a felony. And if the owner called 911 about a warning, that counts as a reasonable effort. Section 51-3-55 says owners do not have to act like the police.

Section 51-3-56 changes how juries divide blame. The jury must assign fault to the criminal. If the criminal gets less blame than the owner, the law presumes the split is unreasonable. The judge must then order a new trial. This will often cut the owner’s share of any award.

Section 51-3-57 applies the same rules to private security companies. They can never owe more than the owner would.

Timing matters. SB 68 Section 9(b) says these rules apply only to crimes that happened on or after April 21, 2025. Older cases follow the prior law.

Example

On July 10, 2025, Marcus was shot during a robbery in the parking lot of his apartment complex in Atlanta. The lot’s entry gate had been broken for six months. Two other armed robberies had happened in the same lot in the past year. Police reports showed management knew about them. Marcus had $95,000 in medical bills and lasting nerve damage.

Marcus is a tenant, so he is an invitee. His lawyer must prove all five parts of section 51-3-51. The two prior robberies are “substantially similar” crimes the owner knew about. The broken gate is a “specific physical condition” that made the lot an easy target. The owner did nothing to fix it for six months. That is a failure of ordinary care. Marcus may have a claim.

But under section 51-3-56, the jury must assign fault to the robber too. Suppose the jury finds total damages of $500,000. If it puts 60 percent of the blame on the robber and 40 percent on the owner, the owner pays $200,000. The robber’s share is likely uncollectible. If the jury had put more blame on the owner than the robber, the verdict would likely be set aside for a new trial.

Key Points to Remember

  • SB 68 created a new, strict framework for negligent security claims in Georgia.
  • It applies only to crimes that occurred on or after April 21, 2025.
  • Invitees must prove a five-part test, including prior similar crimes or a specific warning.
  • Licensees must prove a specific warning and willful and wanton conduct by the owner.
  • There is no claim for trespassers or for injuries at single-family homes.
  • The jury must assign fault to the criminal, and usually at least as much as to the owner.
  • Security companies face the same limits as property owners.

Related Georgia Laws

Official Sources

This page is general legal information, not legal advice. Laws change and every case is different. Talk to a licensed Georgia attorney about your situation.