Guide
Negligent security lawsuits against Georgia apartment owners
Georgia's 2025 tort reform put negligent security claims into a statute. The elements are specific. Your GL policy is still the question that decides who pays.
The short answer
In Georgia, SB 68 (effective April 21, 2025) put negligent security claims into a statute that requires a plaintiff to prove specific elements, including that the owner knew of prior substantially similar incidents or had a particularized warning. Juries must also assign fault to the criminal. You still pay to defend a suit, and many apartment GL policies exclude or sublimit assault and battery.
General information, not legal, tax, or coverage advice. What's covered depends on your specific policy wording, and the policy controls. Current as of September 2026.
In 2025 Georgia enacted SB 68, a tort reform bill that added a new article to the premises liability chapter of the Georgia code. It sets out what a plaintiff must prove to hold an apartment owner liable for crime on the property, and it tells juries to assign fault to the criminal. For claims arising on or after April 21, 2025, that statute replaces the earlier case-law approach.
A tighter statute does not make a suit free. You still pay to defend it, and many apartment general liability policies exclude assault and battery or cap it at a sublimit.
This guide covers what the statute requires, what it means for how you run the property, and what to check in your policy. We are brokers, so the policy half is where we can help. For the national picture, see our negligent security overview.
Georgia law
What does Georgia's negligent security statute say?
We are insurance brokers, not attorneys. This summary of Georgia law is general information, not legal advice, and reading it doesn't create an attorney–client relationship. Court decisions and statutes change, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case. Current as of September 2026. If you face a claim or a lawsuit, talk to a licensed Georgia attorney.
SB 68 (Act 9), signed by the Governor and effective April 21, 2025, added O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50 through 51-3-57. The statute defines negligent security as a claim against an owner or occupier, or a security contractor, that seeks damages for bodily injury or wrongful death and “arises from an alleged failure to keep the premises and approaches safe from the wrongful conduct of third persons.” O.C.G.A. § 51-3-50(1).
The statute makes itself the exclusive route. It provides that its terms “shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for negligent security against owners or occupiers.” O.C.G.A. § 51-3-53(a).
For an invitee, which covers a typical tenant or visitor, the plaintiff must prove every one of five elements. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51. In plain English:
| Element | What the plaintiff must show |
|---|---|
| 1. Foreseeability | The owner had a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct, or reasonably should have known it was likely, based on prior substantially similar incidents the owner actually knew about. Those incidents can be on the property, on adjoining property, or within 500 yards. A third route covers prior conduct by the same person the owner knew, or should have known, would be on the premises. |
| 2. Foreseeable injury | The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that wrongful conduct. |
| 3. A known physical condition | The wrongful conduct was a reasonably foreseeable result of the criminal exploiting a specific physical condition of the property that the owner knew about, and that condition made the risk substantially greater than the general risk in the area. |
| 4. Failure to fix it | The owner failed to use ordinary care to remedy or mitigate that known condition and to otherwise keep the premises safe from the conduct. |
| 5. Proximate cause | That failure was a proximate cause of the injury. |
Two phrases carry most of the weight. On distance, the statute counts prior incidents on adjoining property “or otherwise occurring within 500 yards of the premises,” but only ones the owner “had actual knowledge” of. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51(1)(B)(ii). On physical conditions, the conduct must have followed from the criminal “exploiting a specific physical condition of the premises known to the owner or occupier.” O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51(3).
The statute defines a particularized warning narrowly: information the owner actually knew and considered credible, specific as to who, what, where, and when. If the owner made any reasonable effort to give that information to law enforcement, the statute bars a claim based on it, and it says a 9-1-1 call or other report to police counts as a reasonable effort. O.C.G.A. §§ 51-3-50(3), 51-3-54(7).
Exclusions and other rules
When is an owner not liable under the statute?
Section 51-3-54 lists situations where no owner or occupier is liable for negligent security. They include injuries to trespassers, injuries to a person not on the premises, wrongful conduct that did not occur on the premises in a place the owner could exclude the person from, and injuries on premises used as a single-family residence. It also excludes a person who came onto the premises to commit certain crimes, or was committing them at the time. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-54.
One exclusion is specific to apartment operators. There is no liability for wrongful conduct by a person on the premises as a tenant or a tenant's guest “if the owner or occupier had commenced eviction proceedings against such tenant at the time of the wrongful conduct.” O.C.G.A. § 51-3-54(4). It turns on whether proceedings had actually begun, so timing and documentation matter.
Licensees
For a licensee, the statute requires a particularized warning and a willful and wanton failure to remedy the known condition, which is a higher standard than ordinary care.
Security contractors
A security vendor that undertakes a duty to keep the premises safe is liable only in the same manner and to the same extent as the owner, and never to a greater extent.
Standard of care
The statute says the owner does not have to meet a standard of extraordinary care, and it lists what the jury considers: the security measures in place, the need for and practicality of others, and whether they would have prevented the injury.
Claims left untouched
The statute says it does not limit breach of contract claims, or claims tied to Code Section 16-5-46. Your lawyer can tell you what that means for a given suit.
The statute provides that “No owner or occupier shall be required to exercise extraordinary care” to keep people safe from third-party wrongful conduct, and that the jury weighs security measures actually in place. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-55. Documented measures are evidence of what you did.
Fault
How does Georgia apportion fault to the criminal?
The statute requires apportionment. If the jury finds a defendant liable, it must “reasonably apportion fault” among the owner or occupier, any third person whose wrongful conduct was a cause of the injury, and others. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-56(1).
There is a check on the result. If the jury fails to assign a reasonable degree of fault to the criminal, “the trial court shall set aside the verdict of the jury and order a retrial of liability and damages.” O.C.G.A. § 51-3-56(3). The statute also creates a rebuttable presumption that an apportionment is unreasonable when the total fault assigned to all wrongdoers is less than the total assigned to owners, security contractors, and others who did not engage in wrongful conduct.
Apportionment to the criminal was already part of Georgia case law before SB 68. In Couch v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 291 Ga. 359 (2012), the Georgia Supreme Court answered a certified question by finding “the jury is allowed to apportion damages among the property owner and the criminal assailant.” The statute now sets out apportionment for negligent security claims directly.
Before SB 68
What was the rule before the statute?
Georgia premises liability cases grew out of O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, which makes an owner liable to invitees for damage caused by a “failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” The Georgia Supreme Court quoted that language in Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P., 301 Ga. 323 (2017).
On prior incidents, Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997), a case involving an apartment complex, held that the incident causing the injury “must be substantially similar in type” to earlier criminal activity on or near the premises. The Court added that this “does not mean identical.”
This is background. The Act says its Sections 6 and 7, which include the negligent security article, “shall apply only with respect to causes of action arising on or after the effective date of this Act, and any prior causes of action shall be governed by prior law.” SB 68 (2025), Section 9(b). The Act became effective on the Governor's approval, April 21, 2025. We are not predicting how any case comes out. Which body of law governs a particular incident is a question for your attorney.
Your policy
What does Georgia law change about your insurance?
Georgia makes the jury apportion fault to the criminal under § 51-3-56, and a verdict that skips it is set aside. That can shrink the owner's share, but apportionment comes at the end of a case the owner has already paid to defend.
The 500-yard “substantially similar” standard makes police calls near the property relevant, and a dated record of what reached your team is how you show what you actually knew. The eviction exclusion works the same way: it turns on whether proceedings had begun, so keep the filing dates.
For the questions to put to your broker, see the hub's policy checklist and records list.
Related reading: multifamily and apartment insurance, claims strategy, and our Alabama guide.
FAQ
Common questions about Georgia negligent security claims
Is a Georgia landlord liable for crime on the property?
Not automatically. For negligent security claims arising on or after April 21, 2025, the effective date of SB 68, the statute says it is the sole and exclusive remedy, and it requires the plaintiff to prove each element, including that the owner knew of prior substantially similar incidents or had a particularized warning. Whether a given owner is liable is a question for a lawyer.
What is a particularized warning under Georgia's negligent security law?
The statute defines it as information the owner actually knew and found credible, which caused the owner to understand that a specific third person was likely to imminently engage in wrongful conduct that posed a clear danger. The information must be specific as to the person's identity, the nature and dangerousness of the conduct, and its location, time, and circumstances.
Does Georgia's law apply to crimes that happen next door?
Prior incidents on adjoining property or within 500 yards can count toward foreseeability, but only if the owner had actual knowledge of them. The statute also bars claims where the wrongful conduct did not occur on the premises in a place from which the owner could exclude the third person.
Does SB 68 apply to incidents before it took effect?
No. SB 68 took effect April 21, 2025, when the Governor signed it. The Act says its negligent security provisions apply only to causes of action arising on or after that date, and that prior causes of action are governed by prior law. Which law applies to a specific incident is a question for a lawyer.
Does the jury have to assign fault to the criminal in Georgia?
Yes. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-56, a jury that finds a defendant liable must reasonably apportion fault among the owner or occupier, any third person whose wrongful conduct caused the injury, and others. If the jury fails to assign a reasonable degree of fault to the criminal, the trial court must set aside the verdict and order a retrial of liability and damages.
Does calling the police protect an apartment owner under Georgia's statute?
Partly. Under § 51-3-54(7), if an owner made any reasonable effort to give a particularized warning to law enforcement, there is no liability on a claim based on that warning, and a 9-1-1 call or other report to police counts as a reasonable effort. It does not address foreseeability from prior incidents or known physical conditions.
Is an owner liable for a tenant's crime after starting an eviction?
Not under the statute, if eviction proceedings had actually begun. Section 51-3-54(4) excludes liability for wrongful conduct by a person on the premises as a tenant or a tenant's guest if the owner had commenced eviction proceedings against that tenant at the time of the conduct.
Working with us
Find the assault and battery gap before a claim does
Georgia's statute narrows the suit, not your policy. Send us your GL and umbrella policies and we will show you what they do for a claim that survives it.
This article is for general educational purposes only. It isn't legal, tax, accounting, or lending advice and doesn't create a producer–client relationship. Policy terms, exclusions, and availability vary by carrier, state, and property. Only the policy actually issued determines coverage. Regulatory and lender requirements change; confirm current rules with your attorney, lender, or servicer before relying on anything here.
Free renewal review
Get a liability coverage review
We'll reply within one business day with when to start marketing it and what to have ready. Built for accounts with $50,000+ in annual premium.
- A second set of expert eyes on your program, free.
- Marketed to the carriers that actually want your risk.
- No obligation, fully confidential.
Book 20 minutes or call (205) 999-4884