Can You Sue for Negligent Security if Assaulted at a Business?
When someone is attacked in a parking garage, apartment complex, hotel, or store, the person who threw the punch is not always the only one responsible. Colorado law can hold a business accountable when it knew, or should have known, that people on its property were at risk and failed to take reasonable steps to protect them. This post walks through how negligent security claims work in Colorado, what makes an attack foreseeable, and the evidence that holds up. A Denver premises liability lawyer at Boesen Law can review what happened and whether the property owner shares the blame.
What Negligent Security Means
Negligent security is a type of premises liability claim. The theory is not that the business committed the assault. It is that the business created or ignored conditions that made the assault likely and did nothing reasonable to reduce the risk. Common examples include:
- Broken or missing lighting in parking lots, stairwells, and garages.
- Doors and gates that do not lock at apartment complexes and hotels, or key cards that were never deactivated.
- No security staff, or untrained staff, at bars, clubs, and venues with a history of fights.
- Disabled or fake cameras that give customers a false sense of safety.
- Ignored warnings about a specific person who had threatened tenants or customers before.
These cases sit under the same body of law as other property hazards, and Colorado’s negligence and liability laws set the framework. Boesen Law starts by identifying exactly what the business controlled and what it failed to do.
For answers to your questions, call:
(303) 999-9999
How Colorado’s Premises Liability Act Applies
Colorado handles injuries on someone else’s property through the Premises Liability Act, which sets different duties depending on why you were there.
- Invitees, such as customers, hotel guests, and tenants in common areas, are owed the highest duty. A landowner is liable for an unreasonable failure to use reasonable care to protect them against dangers the owner actually knew about or should have known about.
- Licensees, such as social guests, are protected against dangers the owner actually knew about and failed to address.
- Trespassers can recover only for harm the owner caused deliberately.
Most negligent security victims are invitees, which gives them the strongest footing. It is the same standard that decides slip and fall cases at grocery stores, applied to a different kind of danger. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the Act is the exclusive remedy against a landowner for injuries on the property, so the claim has to be built around these categories from the start.
Foreseeability: The Heart of the Case
The key question in a negligent security case is whether the attack was foreseeable. Courts and juries look at:
- Prior similar crimes on the property or close by, such as earlier assaults, robberies, or car break-ins.
- Calls for police service to the address over the past few years.
- Complaints from tenants, guests, or employees about lighting, broken locks, or loitering.
- The type of business. A late-night bar or a garage near a transit stop carries different risks than a daytime office.
Crime data is a useful starting point. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation publishes statewide crime statistics by agency, and local police records for the specific address often show a pattern the business cannot claim it missed. Boesen Law requests those records early, because they often decide whether the case moves forward.
How Fault Is Shared With the Attacker
Businesses often argue that the criminal, not the property, caused the harm. In Slack v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2000), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the state’s pro rata liability statute requires a jury to divide fault between negligent and intentional actors who contribute to the same injury. That means the person who committed the assault can be assigned a share of fault, even if that person is never identified or has no money, and the business pays its own share.
That makes the security evidence even more important. The stronger the proof that the business ignored obvious risks, the larger the share of fault a jury is likely to assign to it. When the attack happened at a bar, a separate set of rules can also apply if the business kept serving someone who was visibly intoxicated.
The deadline is tight as well. Most premises claims carry a two-year limit under C.R.S. § 13-80-102, and video from the night of the attack can disappear in days, so Boesen Law sends preservation letters right away.
Injuries and Damages in Assault Cases
Assaults on poorly secured property cause serious harm: facial fractures, broken bones, stab wounds, and head trauma from blows or falls onto concrete that can develop into a traumatic brain injury. Many survivors also live with anxiety, sleep problems, and post-traumatic stress long after the physical wounds heal.
A negligent security claim can include medical expenses, counseling, lost income, pain, and emotional distress, and every one of the types of damages available in a Colorado injury case should be documented from the first appointment. We work with your doctors and counselors so the record reflects how the attack changed your life.
Barry I. Dunn on Negligent Security Claims
Barry I. Dunn, a Boesen Law trial lawyer with more than 31 years of litigation experience who is known for leaving no stone unturned, says:
“A business will almost always say it had no way of knowing an attack would happen. Our job is to find out what it did know. That means the incident logs, the emails between the property manager and the security company, the work orders for the broken light that sat for months, and the police calls to that address. When those records show the warning signs were there, the case is no longer about a random crime. It is about a business that chose not to act.”
What Cases Like Yours Have Recovered
Property owners who ignore hazards can be held to account. Boesen Law secured $500,000 for a client who slipped on an unmarked wet floor at a retail location and suffered knee injuries, and $300,000 for a client who slipped on grease and suffered injuries to the left side of the body, the right knee, and spinal stenosis with shooting pains. Visit our case results for more examples.
Contact Boesen Law After an Assault on Someone Else’s Property
You did not choose where the attack happened, and you should not carry the cost alone. Boesen Law is a boutique firm with big results, and we fight relentlessly to hold businesses accountable when they leave customers and tenants unprotected. Contact our team for a free, in-person consultation. Calls are answered 24 hours a day, you pay nothing up front, and our fee comes only from a recovery.
FAQs About Suing for Negligent Security in Colorado
What is considered negligent security?
Negligent security is a property owner’s failure to take reasonable measures to protect people on its property from foreseeable criminal acts. Broken locks, dark parking lots, missing or untrained guards, and ignored warnings about prior incidents are typical examples.
How hard is it to sue for negligent security?
These cases take work, because the business will argue the attack was unpredictable. The claim becomes much stronger with evidence of prior incidents, complaints, and security failures the owner knew about. Gathering those records quickly is often the difference between a denied claim and a successful one.
What are the four proofs of negligence?
Duty, breach, causation, and damages. The business owed you a duty of care, it failed to meet that duty, that failure contributed to the attack, and you suffered real harm as a result. Each of the elements of negligence has to be proven with evidence.
What constitutes negligence under Colorado law?
Negligence is the failure to use the care a reasonable person or business would use in the same situation. On someone else’s property, the Premises Liability Act defines that duty based on whether you were an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser.
Call (303) 999-9999 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form
Content Reviewed By