Property owners in Pennsylvania have a legal duty to protect visitors, tenants, and customers from foreseeable criminal harm. When that duty is breached, through inadequate lighting, broken locks, no surveillance, or absent security staff, and someone is attacked as a result, the property owner is liable. That liability exists regardless of whether the attacker is ever caught or charged.
This is the foundation of a negligent security claim, and it is an area of Pennsylvania premises liability law that most people do not know exists until after something terrible has already happened.
The Slocum Firm, P.C. has recovered millions for injured clients since 2009, with a recovery rate exceeding 95 percent. Results may vary. Prior case outcomes do not guarantee similar results. Call (570) 209-7376 to speak directly with an attorney. Available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. No fees unless there is a recovery.
The Legal Standard: Foreseeability of Harm
Pennsylvania premises liability law holds that property owners owe a duty of care to visitors, customers, and residents on their property. Under that duty, owners must take steps proportionate to the risks they know about or should know about. In negligent security cases, the central legal question is whether criminal activity or violence at that property was reasonably foreseeable.
Pennsylvania courts apply the foreseeability standard established through decades of premises liability decisions. Courts may consider prior similar incidents at the same location, documented complaints about security issues, and, in some cases, broader area crime patterns, along with whether the property owner knew or should have known about the risk.
A landlord managing an apartment complex near Hamilton Street who has received written complaints about broken entry locks and has done nothing about them is in a difficult legal position. A bar or nightclub on Lehigh Street with a documented record of violent incidents that continues to operate without trained security staff faces the same exposure.
Foreseeability does not require that the exact crime that occurred was predictable in advance. It requires only that harm of a similar type was a known and unremedied risk. That distinction matters because property owners frequently argue that they could not have anticipated a specific attack. Pennsylvania courts have often rejected that argument when the general risk was well established.
Where Negligent Security Incidents Happen in Allentown
Negligent security incidents occur across a wide range of property types in the Lehigh Valley, and the location affects both the legal theory and the strength of the foreseeability argument.
Apartment complexes with broken exterior door locks, unlit stairwells, or parking areas without cameras create environments where assaults and robberies are more likely to occur and easier to carry out. Tenants and their guests in older multi-unit buildings in the neighborhoods around Sixth Street and Seventh Street frequently deal with these conditions.
When a landlord is aware of repeated security failures and takes no action, the legal exposure for any resulting injury is significant.
Shopping centers and retail corridors along Hamilton Street and MacArthur Road can become targets for crime when property owners reduce security patrols or allow surveillance systems to fall into disrepair. Parking garages and surface lots near downtown Allentown present particular risks after dark. Without adequate lighting, working cameras, and controlled access points, these structures create conditions where an attacker has cover and a victim has no protection.
Hotels and motels that fail to secure room entry systems, allow unauthorized persons access to guest floors, or fail to monitor common areas have faced negligent security liability across Pennsylvania when guests are harmed. Entertainment venues and bars operating without trained crowd control staff are another category where these claims arise regularly, particularly when prior incidents at the same location went unaddressed.
Construction of new commercial and residential properties along the Route 22 corridor has also created transitional zones where security infrastructure has not kept pace with increased foot traffic and activity. These areas carry an elevated risk that property owners and developers have an obligation to account for.
Injuries That Result From Negligent Security
Victims of negligent security suffer some of the most serious and lasting injuries seen in Pennsylvania personal injury cases. Assault, robbery, sexual assault, and shooting injuries are among the most common incident types. Physical injuries from these events include broken bones, lacerations, traumatic brain injury, spinal damage, and, in the most severe cases, permanent disability or death.
The psychological harm that follows a violent attack is often as debilitating as the physical injuries. Post-traumatic stress disorder is common among negligent security victims, particularly those who experienced sexual assault or armed robbery. Anxiety, depression, difficulty returning to normal activities, and lasting fear in public spaces are all documented consequences that Pennsylvania law allows victims to recover for when supported by treating mental health professionals.
Lost income during recovery, reduced earning capacity if injuries are permanent, future medical and psychological treatment costs, and the cost of relocating from an unsafe residence are all components of a complete negligent security damages claim. The full scope of what an attack costs a victim financially is rarely visible in the immediate aftermath.
When a negligent security incident results in a fatality, surviving family members may have a wrongful death claim against the property owner under Pennsylvania law. That claim is separate from any estate claim and allows recovery for lost financial support, funeral expenses, and loss of companionship.
Pennsylvania generally provides two years from the date of death to file; confirm the applicable deadline with an attorney, given the specific facts of the case. Call (570) 209-7376 now. An attorney at The Slocum Firm, P.C. answers directly, any time of day.
How Negligent Security Cases Are Built in Pennsylvania
Proving a negligent security claim requires establishing four things: the property owner owed a duty of care, they failed to meet that duty, the failure contributed to the incident that caused harm, and real damages resulted.
In many cases, property owners argue that the criminal act itself, not their security failures, was the true cause of harm, and that this breaks the chain of liability. However, Pennsylvania law allows recovery when the criminal act itself was a foreseeable result of inadequate security measures. The focus is on whether better security could have reduced or prevented the risk of harm.
The investigation that supports those four elements is time-sensitive. Surveillance footage at most commercial properties is automatically overwritten within 24 to 72 hours unless a legal preservation demand is sent immediately.
Maintenance records showing when lighting was last checked or when locks were reported broken can disappear once a property owner becomes aware of a potential claim. Incident reports filed with local police about prior events at the same location need to be secured before they become harder to access.
The Slocum Firm, P.C., sends evidence preservation demands on the day a case is taken. We request incident reports and prior police calls to the property, analyze lighting conditions, lock functionality, surveillance coverage, and staffing records at the time of the incident, and retain security specialists who can testify about what a properly secured property of that type should have looked like.
That specialist testimony is often the difference between a claim that settles and one that does not.
Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations applies to negligent security claims from the date of the incident, codified at 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5524.
For incidents involving government-owned properties, a separate notice of claim may need to be filed within six months under Pennsylvania’s law governing suits against local government entities, codified at 42 Pa. C.S. Section 8541. An attorney should review any incident involving a public facility or municipally operated venue immediately.
Experience With Negligent Security Claims Matters
Negligent security cases are distinct from standard premises liability claims. They require familiarity with security industry standards, knowledge of how foreseeability arguments are built and contested in Pennsylvania courts, and experience working with security specialists who can testify about what constitutes adequate security for a specific property type and location.
The Slocum Firm, P.C., has been handling premises liability and negligent security cases across Pennsylvania since 2009. With over 50 years of combined attorney experience, we know how to connect a property owner’s specific security failures to the harm a victim suffered in a way that holds up under insurer scrutiny and, when necessary, in front of a jury.
You reach an attorney directly by phone or text at any hour. We work on a full contingency basis. Nothing is owed upfront, and no fee is collected unless there is a recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions: Negligent Security Claims in Pennsylvania
What is the difference between a negligent security claim and a standard premises liability claim?
Both involve a property owner’s failure to maintain safe conditions, but negligent security specifically addresses the failure to prevent criminal activity. Standard premises liability involves physical hazards, wet floors, broken stairs, uneven pavement. Negligent security requires showing that crime was foreseeable and that the owner’s specific failures made the victim more vulnerable. The evidence and legal arguments differ significantly.
What if I was a tenant rather than a visitor when the incident occurred?
Tenants have the same protections as any visitor under Pennsylvania’s premises liability law. Landlords owe a duty to maintain safe common areas, working locks, and functioning exterior lighting. A lease does not reduce that obligation. If a landlord’s failure to address a known security risk led to an attack, a claim is available regardless of what the lease says.
Can a negligent security claim be filed if the attacker was never identified or caught?
Yes. The claim is against the property owner, not the attacker. The attacker’s identity matters to the criminal case, not the civil one. What matters here is whether the property owner’s failures created the conditions that made the attack possible; the victim does not need to know who carried it out.
What if I was partially at fault, for example, if I ignored a warning about an unsafe area?
Pennsylvania’s shared fault rule allows recovery as long as your share of fault does not exceed 50 percent, codified at 42 Pa. C.S. Section 7102. Property owners regularly argue that a victim assumed the risk, but simply being present where a crime occurs does not constitute fault. An attorney should evaluate any fault argument before it is accepted.
What if the incident happened at a business that has since closed or changed ownership?
A change in ownership or closure does not automatically end a negligent security claim. Liability may follow the property owner rather than the business tenant, and insurance policies in effect at the time of the incident may still be accessible. An attorney should investigate the ownership and insurance history quickly, as those records become harder to trace over time.
Allentown Negligent Security Attorney: Free Consultation, No Fee Unless We Win
The moment a serious incident happens on a commercial property in Allentown, the property owner’s next call is to their insurer and possibly their attorney. Security footage gets reviewed internally. Maintenance logs get pulled. Staff accounts get documented in ways that protect the owner.
By the time a victim is discharged from the hospital and thinking clearly enough to consider their options, the property owner has already had days to shape the record.
The Slocum Firm, P.C., closes that gap. Evidence preservation demands go out the same day a case comes in. We have been representing Pennsylvania injury victims since 2009, with a recovery rate above 95 percent and most cases resolved in under a year. Results may vary. Prior case outcomes do not guarantee similar results.
Call or text (570) 209-7376 or toll-free at (888) 367-4577 any time of day. Consultations are free. No fees unless there is a recovery.
