Setareh Law
June 1, 2026
A trip to the mall should not end in an assault, robbery, or other violent incident, yet crimes at shopping centers across California are a real and documented threat. When a property owner fails to provide adequate security and a visitor suffers harm as a result, the law may hold that owner accountable. These cases fall under a branch of premises liability known as negligent security, and they give injured victims a path to seek compensation for what they endured.
At Setareh Law, we help clients throughout California pursue premises liability claims against negligent property owners, including those who operate shopping centers and retail spaces. With over $250 million recovered and 60 years of combined experience serving injured individuals, our team knows how to build strong cases and fight for the compensation our clients deserve.
What Negligent Security Means in California
Negligent security is a legal theory holding that a property owner can be liable for harm caused by third-party criminal acts when the owner knew or should have known a dangerous condition existed and failed to take reasonable steps to address it. In a shopping center context, this may include inadequate lighting, broken surveillance cameras, a lack of security personnel, or failure to address a history of prior criminal incidents on the property.
California law imposes a duty of care on commercial property owners toward the people they invite onto their premises. When a shopping center operator ignores warning signs of criminal activity and a customer is attacked, robbed, or otherwise harmed as a result, the operator’s failure to act may give rise to a compensable claim.
The Key Elements of a Negligent Security Claim
Proving negligent security at a shopping center requires establishing several specific elements. Each plays a critical role in connecting the property owner’s failures to the harm you suffered.
Foreseeability of the Harm
One of the most important factors in a negligent security claim is whether the criminal act was foreseeable. Courts look at whether the property owner had prior notice that violent or criminal activity was a risk at that location. Evidence of prior police calls, prior incidents on the property, or a general pattern of crime in the surrounding area may all support foreseeability.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Criminal Victimization, 2023 report, nonfatal violent crimes including robbery and aggravated assault continue to occur at significant rates across the United States. When shopping center owners are aware of these risks and do nothing to mitigate them, the argument for foreseeability becomes much stronger.
Breach of the Duty to Provide Adequate Security
Once foreseeability is established, the next element is showing the property owner failed to meet a reasonable standard of care. This may mean demonstrating that a similar shopping center in the area employed security guards, maintained working surveillance equipment, or took other reasonable precautions that the defendant did not. Knowing how to strengthen a premises liability claim is critical at this stage, as gathering and preserving evidence early can make or break the case.
Causation and Damages
Finally, the plaintiff must show the property owner’s security failures were a substantial factor in causing the harm. This means demonstrating the attack would likely not have occurred, or would have been less severe, had proper precautions been in place. Recoverable damages may include medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.
How Negligent Security Differs From Other Premises Liability Claims
While slip and fall claims involve physical hazards like wet floors or uneven surfaces, negligent security cases center on the foreseeable danger posed by other people. This distinction matters because it requires a different evidentiary approach. Incident reports, crime statistics for the area, maintenance logs, and security staffing records all become key pieces of evidence.
Negligent security claims can arise in shopping center parking lots, interior common areas, restrooms, stairwells, and even individual retail stores within a larger mall. The harm is not always physical violence. Robbery, harassment, and other criminal conduct may all give rise to a valid claim depending on the circumstances. Cases involving violence at entertainment venues follow a similar framework, and the same principles that apply in nightclub injury cases involving poor security often carry over to retail settings.
Setareh Law Is Ready to Review Your Case
Property owners and their insurers rarely concede liability without a fight, which is why having a committed legal team on your side makes a genuine difference. At Setareh Law, our attorneys take a thorough, aggressive approach to negligent security claims, investigating the property’s history, obtaining surveillance footage, and working to build a case the evidence supports. We handle every case on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
If you were harmed at a shopping center because of inadequate security, our team may be able to help you hold the responsible parties accountable. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation.
