Texas Negligent Security Law: Statute, Standards & Key Cases

A tenant is robbed at gunpoint in the breezeway of a Dallas apartment complex at 9 p.m. The exterior lighting along the breezeway burned out three weeks ago. The complex's perimeter gate has been propped open with a cinder block — management knows about it and has done nothing. Two other tenants were robbed in the same breezeway in the past six months.

The robber faces criminal charges. But the apartment complex — which knew about the crime pattern and failed to address basic security deficiencies — faces a civil claim: negligent security.

Texas has a well-developed body of case law governing negligent security, particularly for apartment complexes and hotels. But the state's proportionate responsibility system and status-based duty framework create rules that differ from many other states. Here is what Texas law actually requires.

Statute of Limitations

Two years from the date of injury. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003, all personal injury claims — including negligent security — must be filed within two years of the date the injury occurred.

If the victim is a minor, the statute may be tolled until they reach the age of 18. Claims against government entities require notice within six months of the incident.

This deadline is strictly enforced. If you miss it, your claim is barred.

Legal Standard

Status-Based Duty of Care

Texas uses a status-based approach to determine the level of care a property owner owes. The duty depends on the injured person's legal status on the property:

Invitees — customers, tenants, hotel guests, and anyone on the property for the owner's business benefit. Property owners owe invitees the highest duty of care: they must inspect for and either warn of or make safe dangerous conditions, including foreseeable criminal activity.

Licensees — social guests and others on the property with permission but not for the owner's business purpose. Property owners must warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions.

Trespassers — persons on the property without permission. Generally, no duty of care applies, except the property owner cannot willfully injure or set traps for trespassers. (Limited duties exist for child trespassers under the attractive nuisance doctrine.)

Most negligent security plaintiffs are invitees — tenants, hotel guests, customers, or employees. The highest duty of care applies.

Foreseeability

The central question in Texas negligent security cases is whether the criminal act was foreseeable. Texas courts look primarily at prior similar criminal activity on or near the property.

Factors courts evaluate:

• Prior criminal incidents on the property itself (the strongest evidence)
• Criminal activity in the surrounding area
• The nature of the business and its hours of operation
• Whether the owner received complaints about safety conditions
• Industry security standards for the property type
• The physical characteristics of the property (lighting, access points, visibility)

Proportionate Responsibility (Modified Comparative Fault)

Texas follows a modified comparative fault system under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This directly affects negligent security claims because the criminal attacker is typically assigned a share of responsibility.

The rule: if the plaintiff is found 51% or more at fault, they recover nothing. If the plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, their recovery is reduced by their percentage of responsibility.

Critically, Texas allows the criminal actor to be designated as a responsible third party, even if they are not a defendant in the lawsuit. This means the jury allocates a percentage of fault to the attacker, which reduces the amount the property owner pays. If the jury assigns 60% fault to the attacker and 40% to the property owner, the property owner pays 40% of the total damages.

This makes Texas negligent security cases more challenging for plaintiffs than in states with joint and several liability.

Key Texas Cases

Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain (Tex. 1998)

The Texas Supreme Court established the controlling standard for foreseeability in negligent security cases. A tenant who was raped in her apartment sued the landlord and management company for negligent failure to provide adequate security. The court held that foreseeability should be determined by examining prior similar criminal activity on or near the premises, evaluating three factors now known as the "Timberwalk factors": proximity (how close prior crimes were to the property), similarity (whether prior crimes were similar to the incident), and publicity (whether prior crimes were known to the owner). In this case, the court found the assault was not foreseeable to the complex and found no duty to provide additional security beyond statutory requirements.

Del Lago Partners v. Smith (Tex. 2010)

The Texas Supreme Court addressed a hotel's duty to respond to an escalating situation. A fraternity reunion at the Del Lago resort's Grandstand Bar turned violent after 90 minutes of hostile words and gestures between intoxicated groups. Bradley Smith was seriously injured in the resulting brawl. The court held that while Del Lago had no duty to station security permanently at the bar (given the lack of prior violent incidents), the hotel did have a duty to call security at some point during the 90 minutes of escalating tensions, because the danger was apparent to everyone present. The jury allocated 51% fault to Del Lago and 49% to Smith, awarding over $1.4 million in damages.

Lefmark Management Co. v. Old (Tex. 1997)

The Texas Supreme Court held that a property owner was liable for negligent security when a ten-year-old girl was abducted from outside her apartment complex and taken to a vacant apartment in another complex where she was raped. The vacant apartment had no glass in the windows and the door was off its hinges, violating a city ordinance requiring owners to secure doors and windows of vacant structures to prevent unauthorized entry. The court held that the ordinance established minimum standards and that an unexcused violation constituted negligence as a matter of law. This is the only case in which the Texas Supreme Court has directly held that a duty was owed by a property possessor regarding criminal acts of third parties and articulated what that duty required.

What Property Owners Must Do

Texas law imposes both general duties and specific statutory requirements:

General Duty

Property owners must exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts. What constitutes "reasonable" depends on the property's crime history, type, and location. Courts evaluate the owner's security measures against industry standards and the known risk level.

Residential Landlord Requirements

Texas Property Code Chapter 92 creates specific, mandatory obligations for residential landlords regarding security devices:

• Deadbolt locks on all exterior doors
• Window latches on all windows
• Peepholes (door viewers) on exterior doors
• Sliding door security bars or equivalent locking mechanisms
• Keyless deadbolts on all exterior doors
• Rekeying of locks between tenants

Failure to provide these devices — or failure to repair them within a reasonable time after tenant request — creates statutory liability. A tenant can recover actual damages, one month's rent plus $500, court costs, and attorney's fees for violations.

What Courts Expect Beyond the Minimum

For properties with documented crime histories, courts expect measures beyond the statutory minimum:

• Functioning lighting in parking areas, walkways, and entry points
• Working security cameras in high-risk areas
• Security patrol for properties with repeated violent incidents
• Controlled access (functioning gates, key-card entry)
• Timely repair of broken security infrastructure
• Incident documentation and response protocols

Available Damages

Successful Texas negligent security claims may recover:

• Medical expenses — past and future
• Lost wages and earning capacity — past and future
• Pain and suffering — physical and mental
• Emotional distress — PTSD, anxiety, depression
• Disfigurement — if applicable
• Loss of consortium — spouse's claim for loss of companionship
• Wrongful death damages — if the victim died, under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 71 (see our Texas wrongful death guide)
• Punitive (exemplary) damages — available when the property owner acted with gross negligence, fraud, or malice. Requires clear and convincing evidence.

Punitive damage caps: Texas caps exemplary damages at the greater of (1) two times economic damages plus non-economic damages up to $750,000, or (2) $200,000.

Practical Next Steps

If you were a crime victim at a Texas property with inadequate security:

Act within two years. The statute of limitations is strict. Begin by consulting an attorney as early as possible — critical evidence (security footage, maintenance logs, incident reports) may be destroyed if not preserved through legal demand.

Document everything. Photograph the property's security conditions — lighting, cameras, gates, locks, guard presence. Take time-stamped photos.

Get the police report. The report documents the crime and the responding officer's observations about the property.

Preserve medical records. Emergency room visits, follow-up treatment, psychological care — all are evidence of damages.

Do not give statements to the property owner's insurance company without consulting an attorney. Anything you say can be used to allocate fault to you under Texas's proportionate responsibility rules.

Consult a Texas premises liability attorney. These cases require expert testimony on security standards, crime foreseeability analysis, and a strategy for managing the proportionate responsibility allocation.

Related Texas Guides

• Texas Premises Liability Law — the broader framework governing property owner duties
• Texas Wrongful Death Law — when a negligent security failure results in death

---

Last updated: May 27, 2026. Consult a Texas attorney for advice specific to your situation.