When someone is robbed, assaulted, or otherwise harmed on another person’s property, the common assumption is that only the criminal bears responsibility. Texas law doesn’t work that way. Property owners owe a legal duty to the people they invite onto their premises, and that duty can include protecting visitors against foreseeable criminal acts. A criminal’s conduct doesn’t automatically erase what the property owner failed to do before the crime occurred.
How that duty is defined, what Texas law specifically requires, and how courts evaluate whether a property owner fell short are the questions that determine whether a negligent security claim is viable. At Law Offices of Ruben Ortiz, Ruben Ortiz has been handling Texas personal injury cases since 1998. What follows is the legal framework that applies to these situations in El Paso and across the state.
The Legal Duty Texas Property Owners Owe to Visitors
Texas premises liability law requires property owners to protect invitees (customers, tenants, and guests on the property with the owner’s permission) against foreseeable dangers. That protection extends to foreseeable criminal acts by third parties when the owner had control over the premises and knew or should have known that criminal activity was a real risk.
The duty doesn’t rest only with the person whose name is on the deed. Property managers, landlords, commercial businesses, and security companies that share operational control can each carry a portion of this legal obligation. In a negligent security case, any of these parties may be responsible depending on who had authority over the conditions that contributed to the harm.
For residential rental properties, Texas Property Code Chapter 92, Subchapter D goes further than general premises liability principles by setting specific statutory requirements. Under Section 92.153, landlords must install window latches, a doorknob lock or keyed dead bolt on each exterior door, sliding door pin locks, a sliding door handle latch or security bar on each exterior sliding glass door, keyless bolting devices, and door viewers at their own expense and without any written request from the tenant. These aren’t optional amenities. They’re legally required baseline security devices, and a landlord who fails to provide them isn’t just falling short of best practice. They’re violating a specific statutory obligation.
How Courts Determine Whether a Crime Was Foreseeable
Foreseeability is the central question in most negligent security claims. A property owner can’t be held liable for every random act of violence on their premises, but they can be held liable when prior circumstances should have put them on notice that criminal activity was a genuine risk they were positioned to reduce.
Texas courts evaluate foreseeability using five factors drawn from case law, applied together rather than in isolation:
- Frequency of prior crimes near the property. How often had similar crimes occurred in the vicinity?
- Proximity of those crimes to the property. Were prior incidents in the parking lot, on adjacent property, or at more distant locations?
- Publicity of the area’s criminal reputation. Was the neighborhood’s crime problem widely known through news coverage or community awareness?
- Recency of prior criminal acts. Were the prior incidents recent enough to inform what the owner should have anticipated?
- Similarity between prior crimes and the incident that caused the injury. A prior robbery does more to foreshadow another robbery than a prior vandalism incident does.
A property owner who received tenant complaints about prior break-ins, reviewed police reports for the area, or was aware of a pattern of criminal activity in surrounding blocks can’t escape liability by claiming the crime came without warning. Notice, once established, creates an obligation to act. Crime history records for the specific property and surrounding neighborhood are among the most time-sensitive evidence we seek to gather early in these cases.
What Adequate Security Looks Like Under Texas Law
For residential properties, Texas Property Code Chapter 92 provides the statutory baseline. For commercial properties, the standard is more fact-specific: courts ask what a reasonable property owner, aware of prior criminal activity at or near the premises, should have done to protect visitors.
Common security failures that appear in these cases include the following:
- Inadequate or absent lighting in parking lots, stairwells, and building entries
- Nonfunctioning or absent surveillance cameras in areas where criminal activity had previously occurred
- Broken or missing perimeter fencing that allowed unauthorized access
- No security personnel at properties where the crime history warranted a guard presence
- Defective lock systems on doors, gates, or garage access points
Property owners who do hire security personnel take on an additional layer of responsibility. If those guards are inadequately trained or were hired without a proper background check, the negligent hiring itself can independently support a claim. The duty isn’t satisfied by placing a warm body at an entrance. It requires that security staff are qualified to perform the function they’re hired for.
How Texas Proportionate Responsibility Applies to Negligent Security Victims
Texas follows a proportionate responsibility system under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.001. A claimant whose share of fault reaches 51% or greater recovers nothing. A claimant found to be 50% or less at fault can still recover, but the award is reduced by their fault percentage. If a jury finds a victim 30% at fault and awards $100,000, the net recovery is $70,000.
Property owners and their insurers understand this framework well and use it as a defense strategy. They frequently argue that the victim provoked the altercation, was in a restricted area without authorization, or made choices that contributed to the harm. These arguments are designed to push the victim’s fault percentage above the 50% threshold and eliminate liability entirely.
This is one reason why evidence preservation in the days immediately after an incident isn’t a formality. It’s the foundation that either supports or undercuts those fault-shifting arguments later.
Steps to Take After an Injury Caused by Inadequate Security
Texas law gives negligent security victims two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury claim. Missing that deadline typically means forfeiting any right to recover damages, regardless of how strong the underlying case might have been. Within that window, the most time-sensitive issue is evidence. Surveillance systems at commercial properties and apartment complexes often overwrite footage on cycles as short as 72 hours to two weeks. Once that footage is gone, it can’t be recovered. Incident reports filed by property staff and police reports documenting prior crimes at the location also become harder to obtain as time passes.
One practical step matters before anything else: don’t give a recorded statement to the property owner’s insurer or their representatives before speaking with an attorney. Those statements are used to build the fault-percentage arguments discussed above. A statement made before you fully understand what happened, who bears responsibility, and what the insurance company is actually trying to accomplish can reduce your recovery or eliminate it entirely.
El Paso County civil claims, including negligent security and broader premises liability cases, are filed in the El Paso District Courts. The procedural steps from filing to resolution involve deadlines and discovery obligations that can move quickly once a claim is initiated.
If you or a family member was injured on someone else’s property, we offer a free consultation to evaluate what happened, and our no-fees-unless-we-win policy means there’s no financial barrier to getting answers. Reach us at (915) 308-8850.