The most common premises liability cases are slip-and-fall accidents where someone is injured on someone else’s property. But in some cases, premises liability can include responsibility for crimes committed by third parties on a property like an assault or a robbery. Aside from suing the criminal for damages, a plaintiff may even be able to sue the property owner of the location where it happened. This area of law is complex, balancing the rights of victims with property owners’ obligations to maintain safe premises. So, let’s break it down in plain English. 

Understanding Premises Liability 

First off, it’s important to understand the concept of premises liability. Premises liability cases are considered personal injury cases. Under Texas law, property owners have a responsibility to keep their premises safe for visitors. This could mean fixing a broken stair, putting up a wet floor sign, or making sure there’s proper lighting in a parking lot.  

If a visitor or customer is injured in a way that should have been prevented, they may have grounds to sue. But does this responsibility extend to protecting people from criminal acts committed by third parties, like a mugging in a parking lot or an assault at a bar? Sometimes, yes. 

For a successful premises liability lawsuit, you typically need to prove two things: 

1. The Crime Was Foreseeable 

Generally, in Texas, property owners are not liable for crimes committed by a third act. However, in 1998, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that property owners can be held liable if they knew or should have known about a potential danger and didn’t take reasonable steps to prevent it. In other words, the crime was foreseeable.  

For example, in the 1998 case, Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, Tammy Cain, a tenant at Timberwalk Apartments, was sexually assaulted by an intruder in her apartment. She sued the apartment complex owners, claiming they had not taken enough preventative security measures to prevent crimes like this.  

The Court established a set of rules, dubbed the “Timberwalk factors”, to determine foreseeability: 

Proximity: How close in distance the previous crimes were to the property in question. The closer the previous crimes occurred to the property, the more foreseeable it might be that similar crimes could happen there. 

Recency: How recently the prior crimes occurred. Crimes that happened more recently suggest a higher likelihood of recurrence compared to crimes that occurred a long time ago. 

Frequency: How often similar crimes have occurred in the area. A higher frequency of similar crimes could indicate a greater forseeability of such incidents happening on the property. 

Similarity: Whether the crimes were similar to the incident in question. For example, in the Timberwalk case, since the crime in question was a sexual assault, the court looked at whether there were other sex-related assaults in the area rather than unrelated crimes like property damage. 

Publicity: Whether the prior crimes were publicized or known to the property owner. If the property owner knew or should have known about the previous crimes, they might be held more accountable for not taking steps to prevent similar incidents. 

In Cain’s case, while the incident was tragic and the perpetrator was tried, the court ruled that the prior crime in the area did not make the specific assault foreseeable to the property owner.  

2. The Owner Was Negligent 

Even if the crime was foreseeable, you also need to show that the property owner was negligent in their response to this risk. For example, did they fail to fix broken locks, ignore lighting issues in a dark parking lot, or not hire adequate security despite knowing the risks? If they dropped the ball here, they could be held liable. 

It’s important to note that the measures taken by the property owners should be reasonable. For instance, businesses are not expected to be security fortresses. But they should have installed measures that another ordinary person in the same situation would have taken.  

Cain’s case was established on the basis that the owners of Timberwalk Apartments had been negligent in their security measures, allowing a dangerous crime to happen on their premises. She claimed that the owners should have stationed guards outside of the apartment and did not provide proper security including alarm systems and pin locks for sliding glass doors. However, the court ruled that Cain, herself, was the only one negligent and Timberwalk was not held liable.  

What Should You Do If You’ve Been a Victim? 

As you can see in the Timberwalk case, premises liability suits are difficult to navigate if you are not knowledgeable of the legal system. If you’ve been a victim of a crime on someone else’s property and you think the owner might be partially to blame, it’s a good idea to talk to a lawyer who specializes in premises liability. 

At Carter Law Group, we can help you figure out whether you have a case and what kind of evidence you’ll need. Things like police reports, security footage, and witness statements can all play a big role in proving your case. Call us today with your case to start your consultation. 

Interested in reading more from CLG? Check out our other blog posts:

Read more