Negligent Security After HB 837 in Tampa, Florida

After Florida’s 2023 tort reform, a property owner who installs specified security measures can claim a presumption against liability when a crime injures a visitor, which changed how these cases are proven. A negligent security lawyer in Tampa now has to anticipate that defense from the start.

This guide explains how HB 837 changed negligent security claims in Tampa and what injured visitors may need to prove when seeking compensation.

What a Negligent Security Claim Is

Negligent security is a premises liability theory: a property owner who invites the public onto land has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect visitors from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. The claim does not make the owner an insurer of safety. It asks whether the owner knew or should have known of a danger and failed to respond reasonably, for example by ignoring a history of violent crime on the property.

How HB 837 Changed the Analysis

House Bill 837 added Section 768.0706, which applies only to multifamily residential property. That means apartments, townhouses, or condominiums with at least five dwelling units on one parcel. Bars, hotels, stores, and other commercial sites fall outside it. An owner who substantially implements a defined set of measures gains a presumption against liability.

Those measures include required lighting in common areas, security cameras at entry and exit points with 30 days of footage, locked pool gates, deadbolts and door viewers on unit doors, and a crime prevention through environmental design assessment. Section 768.0706(3) puts the burden on the owner to prove substantial implementation, and the statute creates no private cause of action.

How Fault Is Divided With the Criminal

Florida law also tells the jury to weigh the fault of the person who actually committed the crime. Section 768.0701 requires that, and it reaches both commercial and residential property. Liability among defendants stays several under Section 768.81(3), so each pays only its own share. Section 768.81(6) now bars any claimant found more than 50 percent at fault from recovering at all. That makes the apportionment fight central.

The defense will argue the criminal bears most of the responsibility, while the claimant shows how the owner’s failures created the opportunity. Building the record on both the owner’s conduct and the crime is what keeps the property owner’s share meaningful.

Foreseeability on Tampa Property

The heart of most of these cases is whether the crime was foreseeable, and local facts build that answer. Prior incidents on the property, calls for service, and Tampa Police Department data for the surrounding area all bear on what the owner should have anticipated.

In a district like Ybor City, with heavy late-night foot traffic, an owner’s awareness of the setting is part of the analysis. Bars and other businesses there answer under common law rules, not the multifamily statute. A pattern of earlier break-ins or assaults is often the strongest evidence that more should have been done.

What the CPTED Assessment Actually Involves

The crime prevention through environmental design assessment named in the statute is not a formality. It is a structured review of how a property’s layout, lighting, landscaping, and sightlines either invite or discourage crime. The statute requires an assessment no more than three years old, performed by a law enforcement agency or a practitioner designated by the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute. The owner must also stay in substantial compliance with what the assessment found.

An owner who commissioned one, then ignored its recommendation to trim overgrown landscaping that concealed an entryway, has a weaker claim to the presumption than the paperwork alone suggests.

Proving the Case and the Deadline

The evidence comes from incident reports, prior police calls, lighting and camera audits, and maintenance records showing whether safety equipment worked. Photographs of broken locks or dark stairwells taken soon after the attack can be decisive. A premises liability attorney in Tampa⁠ can help collect and review these records before they disappear.

Under Section 95.11, claims accruing on or after March 24, 2023, carry a two-year deadline, while older claims keep the prior four years. Preserving material early matters, since the statute requires only 30 days of camera retention, and conditions get repaired.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does a negligent security lawyer in Tampa have to prove now?

You must show the crime was foreseeable and the owner acted unreasonably, and you may also have to overcome the Section 768.0706 presumption if the owner adopted the listed measures.

Does HB 837 mean I cannot sue an apartment owner?

No. The presumption can be rebutted, and owners who did not adopt the measures do not get it.

Is the property owner responsible if a stranger committed the crime?

They can share responsibility. The jury weighs the criminal’s fault alongside the owner’s failures, and liability is several.

How long do I have to file?

Florida’s general injury deadline is two years from the incident, so evidence should be preserved promptly.

Talk to a Tampa Negligent Security Lawyer

Camera footage can be overwritten, and repairs may erase important evidence of unsafe property conditions. Acting quickly can help preserve the evidence needed to support a negligent security claim. 

Fulgencio Law represents people in negligent security cases and other broader injury claims⁠. We offer free consultations and charge no attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for you.

Contact our Tampa office at (813) 463-0123 to discuss what happened to you.

Last reviewed: August 2026

This post was reviewed by Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq., licensed in Florida since 2012.

Content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Florida attorney for guidance specific to your situation.