Negligent Security
When a violent crime happens where a property owner should have seen it coming, the real question is what they did to prevent it. We represent people hurt by assaults, robberies, and shootings on premises where inadequate security made the attack possible, and we hold owners accountable for the protection they owed.
Talk to an attorneyFounded
1965
Attorneys
11
AV-rated
Martindale-Hubbell
Office
Bellevue, WA
Founded
1965
Attorneys
4
AV-rated
Martindale-Hubbell
Office
Bellevue, WA
Negligent security attorneys for Bellevue and Seattle injury clients
Oseran Hahn represents people attacked on property where the owner ignored a danger it knew about: an apartment complex with broken gate locks, a parking garage with dead lighting and no cameras, a bar with a history of fights and no security on the floor. Washington law makes a business or a landlord responsible for protecting the people it invites in from foreseeable crime. We prove what the owner knew, what reasonable security would have taken, and how the attack connects to what was missing. The first conversation is free.
Negligent security asks premises liability's hardest question: when is a property owner responsible for a crime someone else committed? We establish whether the owner owed you a duty through a special relationship like business and customer or landlord and tenant; we prove the attack was foreseeable from prior crime on or near the property; we show the security that reasonable care required and that was missing; we connect that gap to how the attack unfolded; and we hold the owner to its share even though a criminal also caused the harm.
When an owner must protect you from crime
Washington starts from a general rule that no one answers for another person's crime, then carves out the exception that matters here: when a special relationship exists, the owner owes a duty of reasonable care to protect against foreseeable criminal acts. Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner, 133 Wn.2d 192 (1997), established that a business owes its invitees that duty, and Restatement (Second) of Torts section 344 sets the same rule for land held open to the public. Landlord and tenant is another recognized relationship, so an apartment owner can owe the duty to residents and their guests.
Foreseeability and prior similar incidents
The case usually turns on foreseeability: should the owner have seen the danger coming? Under McKown v. Simon Property Group, 182 Wn.2d 752 (2015), a business's duty to guard against third-party crime arises when it knows or should know of prior similar acts on the premises or of an imminent danger. We pull the crime history for the property and the surrounding blocks, the 911 call logs, prior incident reports, and what the owner had been told, because a pattern of earlier robberies or assaults is what makes the next one foreseeable.
The security that reasonable care required
Once a duty exists, the question is whether the owner met it. We work with security experts to show what reasonable care called for and what was missing: working locks and gates, lighting that actually covers the lot, functioning cameras, controlled access, and trained guards where the risk called for them. For rental housing, Griffin v. West RS, Inc., 143 Wn.2d 81 (2001), recognizes a landlord's duty over secured common areas. The standard is reasonableness, not perfection, but ignoring a known danger is not reasonable.
Connecting the security gap to the attack
A negligent-security claim has to link the missing security to the harm: would a working lock, a camera, or a guard have stopped or blunted the attack? This is where these cases are won or lost, and where defense experts push hardest. We reconstruct how the attack happened, where the security failed, and what a reasonable measure would have changed, using the scene, the timeline, and the path the attacker took onto the property.
Holding the owner's share alongside the criminal
The owner will argue the criminal is the only one at fault. Washington allocates fault among everyone responsible under RCW 4.22.070, and a property owner that failed at a duty to protect against that very crime keeps its share of the responsibility. Your own recovery follows pure comparative fault under RCW 4.22.005, reduced by any share assigned to you but not erased. Most personal-injury claims must be filed within three years under RCW 4.16.080, and the security evidence, especially video, disappears quickly.
Insurers keep track of which firms prepare a file like it's headed to a jury and which ones take the first offer. We're in the first group, and it changes what your claim is worth.
You pay nothing unless we recover.
We handle injury cases on a contingency fee. The consultation is free, we advance the costs of building the case, and our fee comes out of the recovery, not your pocket. If there's no recovery, you owe no attorney fee.
Built for trial, which is why most settle.
Every file is prepared as if a jury will see it: evidence preserved, experts lined up, damages documented. That preparation is exactly why the other side settles, and settles higher. The firm's trial group has been in Washington courtrooms for decades.
Senior attorneys, straight talk.
You work with experienced attorneys, not a rotating case manager, and you'll get an honest read on your claim, including when a case isn't worth bringing. Communication is steady and in plain language, so you always know where things stand.
The attorneys behindthe work.
Our business and corporate attorneys handle this work alongside our litigation team, so you have coverage whether your matter stays transactional or becomes something more.
What clientsask us first.
Can a property owner really be liable for a crime someone else committed?
Yes, in the right circumstances. Washington doesn't hold owners responsible for random crime, but when a special relationship exists, like business and customer or landlord and tenant, the owner owes a duty to protect against foreseeable criminal acts under Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner. The case turns on what the owner knew and what it failed to do.
How do you prove the attack was foreseeable?
Foreseeability usually comes from prior similar crime on or near the property. We gather the police call history, prior incident reports, and what the owner had been warned about. Under McKown v. Simon Property Group, a pattern of earlier assaults or robberies is what puts an owner on notice that another is likely.
What does it cost to bring a negligent security case?
Nothing up front. We take these cases on a contingency fee: the consultation is free, we advance the costs, including the security experts these cases need, and our fee comes from the recovery. If there's no recovery, you owe no attorney fee.
How long do I have to file?
Generally three years from the date of the attack, under RCW 4.16.080. These cases depend on evidence that vanishes fast, especially surveillance video that gets overwritten in days and security logs that get purged, so the sooner you call, the more we can preserve.
What if the attacker was never caught or has no money?
That's often the whole point. The claim is against the property owner and its insurer for failing to provide reasonable security, not against the attacker. You don't need the criminal caught, convicted, or able to pay for the owner to answer for its own negligence.
Recentarticles.
Tell us what happened. The consultation is free, and an attorney from our personal-injury group will follow up within one business day.
Oseran Hahn P.S. · 11225 SE 6th St, Suite 100 · Bellevue, WA 98004
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.