Negligent Security Claims in Florida After HB 837: The New Presumption Against Liability

On March 24, 2023, Florida enacted House Bill 837, the most sweeping tort reform legislation in decades. For victims of violent crime on someone else's property (a shooting in an apartment complex parking lot, an assault in a poorly lit stairwell, a robbery at a residential building with a broken security gate) HB 837 fundamentally rewrote the rules. The law created a brand-new presumption against liability for owners and operators of multifamily residential properties, codified at Fla. Stat. § 768.0706, and it changed how juries apportion fault, how long you have to file, and how much you can recover.

If you or a family member was attacked on commercial or residential property in Miami, understanding these changes is not optional. The window to act is shorter, the evidence disappears faster, and the defenses available to property owners are stronger than they have ever been. This page explains exactly what changed, cites the governing statutes, and walks through concrete examples so you know where your claim stands.

What Is a Negligent Security Claim?

Negligent security is a species of premises liability. Property owners and operators in Florida owe invitees a duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, which includes taking reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. When an apartment complex ignores a pattern of armed robberies in its parking lot, fails to repair broken gates and lighting, and a resident is shot, the owner may be liable for the harm the crime caused.

Common negligent security scenarios in Miami include:

• Shootings and assaults in apartment and condominium parking lots and common areas
• Attacks in stairwells, hallways, laundry rooms, and elevators with inadequate lighting or surveillance
• Assaults enabled by broken perimeter gates, propped-open doors, or non-functioning access controls
• Robberies and carjackings where on-site security was promised but absent

Before HB 837, these cases were governed almost entirely by common-law negligence principles. Now, two new statutes, Fla. Stat. § 768.0701 and Fla. Stat. § 768.0706: sit at the center of every case. An experienced Miami negligent security lawyer must build the case around both from day one.

Fla. Stat. § 768.0706: The Presumption Against Liability

Section 768.0706 applies to multifamily residential property: defined as a residential building, or group of residential buildings such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums, consisting of at least five dwelling units on a particular parcel. For these properties, the statute creates a presumption against liability for injuries or death arising from the criminal acts of third parties who are not employees or agents of the owner, if the owner substantially implements a specific checklist of security measures.

The Statutory Security Checklist

To earn the presumption, the owner or principal operator must have all of the following in place:

The CPTED Assessment and Training Requirements

The checklist alone is not enough. By January 1, 2025, the owner or operator must also have:

1. A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment of the property that is no more than three years old, performed by a law enforcement agency or a Florida Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Practitioner designated by the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute of the Department of Legal Affairs; and
2. Substantial compliance with that assessment; and
3. Proper crime deterrence and safety training for current employees, with new employees trained within 60 days of hire.

If the owner satisfies all of these requirements, the statute presumes the owner is not liable for the criminal attack. If the owner falls short on any element, the presumption never attaches and the case proceeds under ordinary negligence principles.

A Worked Example

Suppose a tenant is shot during a robbery in the parking lot of a 200-unit apartment complex in Miami. The owner produces a CPTED assessment dated 18 months before the shooting, camera footage from the entry gates, and lighting maintenance logs. If everything checks out, the presumption attaches and the claim faces a steep uphill battle.

But now suppose our investigation reveals that the camera system only retained footage for 14 days, that three parking lot light poles had been dark for months per tenant complaints, or that the perimeter gate had been broken and propped open for weeks. Any one of those failures defeats the presumption. This is why immediate investigation matters: the statute only requires 30 days of camera retention, which means critical footage can be lawfully destroyed within a month of the attack unless a preservation demand is served first.

Fla. Stat. § 768.0701: The Jury Must Apportion Fault to the Criminal

HB 837 also enacted § 768.0701, which requires the trier of fact in any negligent security action to consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury, including the third party who committed the crime. In practice, this means the defense will ask the jury to place most of the blame on the attacker, who is usually unknown, in prison, or judgment-proof.

Here is what that looks like in dollars. Assume a jury awards $1,000,000 in damages and apportions fault 75% to the shooter and 25% to the property owner. The owner pays only its share: $250,000. The 75% assigned to the criminal is, as a practical matter, uncollectable. Winning a negligent security case after HB 837 is therefore not just about proving the owner was negligent; it is about proving the owner's failures were a substantial, driving cause of the attack, so the jury assigns a meaningful percentage of fault to the party who can actually pay.

The Statute of Limitations Was Cut in Half

HB 837 amended Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(a) to reduce the limitations period for negligence actions from four years to two years. The two-year deadline applies to causes of action accruing after March 24, 2023, which now covers virtually every new negligent security claim.

Worked example: If you were attacked in an apartment complex parking lot on June 10, 2024, your lawsuit generally must be filed by June 10, 2026. Miss that date and the claim is barred forever, no matter how strong the evidence. Because the pre-suit investigation in these cases (obtaining crime grid data, prior incident reports, CPTED assessments, and maintenance records) takes months, waiting even six months to consult counsel can be fatal to a claim. We cover the deadline rules in detail in our guide to the Florida personal injury statute of limitations after HB 837.

Modified Comparative Negligence: The 51% Bar

HB 837 also replaced Florida's pure comparative negligence system with a modified comparative negligence standard under Fla. Stat. § 768.81. If a plaintiff is found more than 50% at fault for their own harm, they recover nothing. Defendants in negligent security cases routinely argue the victim assumed the risk, ignored warnings, or provoked the confrontation, arguments that now carry the threat of a complete bar rather than a mere reduction. You can read more about how this works in our breakdown of Florida's 51 percent comparative negligence bar, or estimate the impact on a hypothetical recovery with our Florida comparative negligence calculator.

Important: The Presumption Does Not Cover Every Property

The § 768.0706 presumption is limited to multifamily residential property with at least five dwelling units. It does not extend to:

• Bars, nightclubs, and restaurants
• Hotels and motels
• Shopping centers, retail stores, and gas stations
• Standalone commercial parking lots and garages
• Office buildings and event venues

Attacks at these properties are still governed by traditional premises liability principles, although the fault-apportionment rule of § 768.0701, the two-year deadline, and the 51% bar all still apply. If the attack occurred in a parking area, insurance coverage questions frequently arise as well; see our discussion of whether insurance companies cover parking lot incidents in Florida.

What Victims Should Do Now: A Practical Checklist

1. Report the crime immediately and obtain the police report number. Prior calls for service at the property are often the backbone of foreseeability evidence.
2. Photograph the scene (broken gates, dark walkways, missing cameras, propped doors) before the owner makes repairs.
3. Identify witnesses, including other tenants who complained about security conditions.
4. Send a preservation letter within days, not weeks. Camera footage may lawfully be overwritten after 30 days. A spoliation demand freezes it.
5. Demand the CPTED assessment and compliance records in discovery. If the assessment is stale, missing, or ignored, the presumption collapses.
6. Calendar the two-year deadline under § 95.11(4)(a) and file well before it.

How Claims Are Won After HB 837

The presumption against liability is powerful, but it is conditional. In our experience, properties that experience violent crime are rarely in genuine compliance with every element of § 768.0706, the burned-out lights, the broken gate, the camera that hasn't recorded in months are usually part of why the attack happened in the first place. The winning strategy is a fast, forensic audit of the property's compliance: lighting photometrics measured against the 1.8 foot-candle standard, camera retention testing against the 30-day requirement, the CPTED assessment measured against actual conditions, and training records measured against the 60-day new-hire rule. Where compliance fails, the presumption falls, and the case is fought on foreseeability and causation, where a documented history of crime at the property speaks loudly.

You can contact the Law Offices of Albert Goodwin by phone at 786-522-1411 or by email at [email protected].