Hurt by a Crime on Someone Else's Property? Let's Talk About Your Options

What is a negligent security case? It is a claim that a property owner or manager failed to protect visitors from a crime that was foreseeable. The person who committed the crime is responsible for that act. The property may also share responsibility for not doing more to prevent it. This guide explains the idea in plain words, whether you’re reading for yourself or for someone you love.

What a negligent security case means

A negligent security case is a premises claim about a third person’s crime. The focus is on what the property did, or failed to do, about a risk it should have foreseen.

New Mexico law puts real weight on this duty. A landowner must use ordinary care to protect a visitor against harm from the foreseeable conduct of a third party, whether that conduct is innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal (UJI 13-1320 NMRA). The owner or occupant must also use ordinary care to keep the premises safe for visitors (UJI 13-1309 NMRA).

New Mexico uses one standard of reasonable care for visitors. The old split between licensees and invitees is gone (Ford v. Board of County Commissioners).

The attacker’s crime is central. But the claim also asks a second question: should the property have done more? For a broader overview, read our negligent security overview for New Mexico.

What “negligent” means in legal terms

In legal terms, negligent means failing to use the care a reasonable person or business would use in similar circumstances. That failure must cause harm. Negligence does not require a plan to hurt anyone.

That difference matters in a security case. The attacker’s act is intentional. The property’s conduct is judged by a different question: did it use ordinary care against risks it could foresee?

New Mexico’s rule says every person has a duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of others (UJI 13-1604 NMRA). UJI 13-1604 NMRA reads: “Every person has a duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of the person and the property of others. [Every person also has a duty to exercise ordinary care for the person’s own safety and the safety of their property.] USE NOTES The bracketed material is to be used only when the party seeking recovery has been charged with lack of ordinary care.” Under New Mexico’s comparative fault system, a landowner’s negligent failure to protect visitors may be compared with the attacker’s conduct (UJI 13-1320 NMRA). So both parts of an incident can matter at once.

Many readers find this the hardest idea to grasp at first. Keep two questions separate: what the attacker did, and what the property did about the risk.

The core elements a negligent security claim generally involves

A negligence claim generally requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and a breach that caused the harm (Herrera v. Quality Pontiac). In a security claim, those pieces look like this.

Duty. The owner or manager owed the visitor ordinary care to keep the property safe.

Breach. The property failed to take reasonable steps, such as adequate lighting, working locks, controlled access, or security suited to a known risk.

Foreseeability. Evidence of similar crimes on or near the property, or of a known risk, often bears on whether the harm was foreseeable.

Causation. The security failure must connect to the injury. A cause contributes to bringing about the injury and is reasonably connected as a significant link to it (UJI 13-305 NMRA). It need not be the only cause or the nearest one (Herrera v. Quality Pontiac).

Damages. The injured person suffered real losses, such as medical costs or lost income.

Whether these elements can be shown depends on the facts of the incident and the property’s history.

Examples of situations that can lead to a negligent security claim

Negligent security claims often involve a crime in a place where a known risk met weak or missing protection. These examples are general patterns, not predictions.

• An assault in a parking lot or garage with poor lighting, no working cameras, or open access, after earlier incidents there.
• An attack in an apartment complex, hotel, or store where locks, gates, or entry controls were broken or ignored.
• An incident where security staff were absent, untrained for the risk, or not posted where the danger was known.
• A violent crime on premises with a pattern of similar incidents that management did not address.

What the property knew and did about the risk is the center of each one. A claim is about the property’s response to a risk, not about bad luck alone.

Who can be responsible, and how negligent security differs from related claims

Responsibility can reach the property owner, a property management company, or a contracted security company. The right party turns on who controlled the premises and its security.

Premises liability is the broader category. It covers injuries caused by unsafe conditions on property someone else controls. A negligent security claim is a premises claim centered on a crime by a third person.

One incident can raise other claims. A fatal attack may lead to a wrongful death claim, and an assault may involve a sexual assault claim. Each has its own elements, so each is worth understanding separately. For how to think about the type of help a matter may need, read choosing the right kind of legal help.

What compensation may cover

Losses in a negligent security case can include medical care, lost income, and other harm the injured person suffered. The value of a claim turns on its own injuries and evidence.

Under New Mexico law, when a person’s death is caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another, even under circumstances that amount in law to a felony, and the act, neglect or default would have entitled the injured person to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued, the person or corporation that would have been liable if death had not ensued is liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured (NMSA § 41-2-1). The action is brought by the deceased person’s personal representative (NMSA 1978, § 41-2-3). The jury may award compensatory and exemplary damages it deems fair and just, taking into consideration the pecuniary injury to the surviving party entitled to the judgment, and also having regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending the wrongful act, neglect or default.

Loss of consortium belongs to the claimant, not to the injured person or the estate (Thompson v. City of Albuquerque).

Why timing and evidence matter

Evidence and deadlines both matter, and both can slip away. Incident reports, security logs, camera footage, lighting records, and earlier complaints often decide these claims. Time can affect whether they still exist.

A wrongful death action must be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues (NMSA 1978, § 41-2-2). A wrongful death action brought under these provisions must be filed within three years after the cause of action accrues, and the cause of action accrues as of the date of death (NMSA § 41-2-2). New Mexico also sets filing deadlines for injury claims, so don’t assume there is plenty of time.

While you wait, write down what you remember, keep every medical record, and save any messages or letters from the property. For local context, see our Santa Fe negligent security page.

Talking with El Gringo Law about your situation

You may be reading this after a frightening event you didn’t choose. It may have happened to you, or to someone you love. The decision in front of you is whether the property’s security played a role. You don’t have to answer that question on your own today.

Common questions

How partial fault affects a claim in New Mexico