Parking Garage Assaults and Owner Liability in Tampa, Florida

A parking garage is a setting where isolation, blind corners, and poor lighting can turn a foreseeable risk into a violent crime. When a property owner ignores known dangers, they may share responsibility. A negligent security lawyer in Tampa can determine whether the garage owner took reasonable steps to protect visitors.

Read on to learn how owner liability may apply after a parking garage assault.

The Duty Property Owners Owe in Garages and Lots

A business or property owner that invites the public to park owes those visitors a duty to take reasonable security measures to protect them from foreseeable criminal acts. Parking structures often contain features that can increase the risk of crime, including low foot traffic, limited sightlines, isolated stairwells and elevators, and long periods with little pedestrian activity.

Florida courts assess foreseeability under a “totality of the circumstances” standard, established by the Florida Supreme Court in Whitt v. Silverman. This means a prior identical or similar crime on the property is not required to establish foreseeability.

Courts may instead look at the nature of the property, the layout and design of the garage, crime patterns in the surrounding area, and other circumstantial evidence that would put a reasonable owner on notice of danger. An owner who knows, or reasonably should know, based on the totality of these circumstances, that a garage carries an elevated risk of robberies or assaults cannot simply treat security as optional.

A premises liability attorney in Tampa can review prior crime reports, security records, and other facts to determine whether the owner knew or should have known about the danger.

Common Security Failures in Parking Garages

Certain security failures appear repeatedly in parking garage assault cases. Burned-out or missing lights, cameras that do not work or record footage, the absence of an attendant or working access gate, and overgrown landscaping that blocks sightlines can all increase the risk of an assault.

For example, if a visitor is attacked in a dim stairwell where the only camera had been broken for weeks, evidence that the owner knew about the broken camera may help support a negligent security claim.

For example, if a visitor is attacked in a dim stairwell where the only camera had been broken for weeks, evidence that the owner knew about the problem may support a negligent security claim. 

How HB 837 Applies to Commercial Garages

Florida’s 2023 legal reforms changed how these claims are handled in two important ways. Section 768.0701 applies when a person lawfully on commercial or other real property is injured by a third party’s criminal act. In a claim against the property’s owner, lessor, operator, or manager, the jury must consider the fault of everyone who contributed to the injury.

Under Section 768.0706, a multifamily property owner may receive a rebuttable presumption against liability by putting the required security measures in place, completing a documented CPTED assessment, and training its employees. The owner must show that these requirements were met.

A standalone commercial parking garage does not qualify for this presumption. Therefore, the main question is whether the owner took reasonable security measures based on the risks it knew or should have known about.

When a garage is part of an apartment community, the statutory presumption may apply. However, the owner must also show that the required security measures were properly maintained.

Dividing Fault After an Assault

More than one party can bear responsibility. The assailant may receive a share of the fault, while the property owner or operator may also bear responsibility for security failures that contributed to the attack.

Under Section 768.0701, the jury considers the fault of everyone who contributed to the injury, including the person who committed the crime. Florida has abolished joint and several liability in negligence actions under Section 768.81, so each party pays only its own percentage.

Because an assailant may have few assets or never be identified, evidence showing that the owner failed to address a foreseeable danger can be especially important when the jury divides fault. The law prevents an injured person from recovering compensation if they are found to be more than 50 percent at fault.

Depending on the circumstances, broader injury claims may also be available against other parties whose negligence contributed to the harm.

Events, Valets, and Shared Responsibility

Garages serving stadiums, concert venues, and nightlife districts may involve additional responsible parties. When a property hosts major events, larger crowds may increase the risk of crime, requiring the owner to adjust staffing and security measures accordingly.

A valet company or third-party security contractor may also share responsibility if it failed to provide adequate staffing or follow appropriate screening procedures.

Determining who controlled the garage, who handled security that night, and whether staffing matched the known risks can help identify every potentially responsible party and protect the injured person’s right to seek compensation.

Where Tampa Parking Garage Claims Are Filed

Downtown Tampa, the Westshore business district, and Channel Side have multi-level garages serving offices, entertainment venues, and nightlife establishments. Security practices can vary considerably from one property to another.

Some of these structures are privately owned, while others belong to the City of Tampa or a public authority. That distinction matters because a claim against a government owner requires written pre-suit notice under Section 768.28 and may be subject to the statute’s damage caps. Prior incident reports and police call histories for a particular structure may show whether its owner should have anticipated the danger.

Cases against private owners are usually filed in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. During discovery, an owner may be required to produce maintenance and security records.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a parking garage owner after an assault in Tampa?

You may, if the assault was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable security measures such as lighting, cameras, or access control. The garage’s crime history is central.

Does the owner escape liability because a criminal attacked me?

No. The criminal is responsible, and the owner can still share fault for conditions that enabled the attack. Florida divides fault among the parties.

What evidence helps a garage assault claim?

Lighting and maintenance records, camera footage and logs, prior incident reports, and police call histories for the property all help establish the claim.

How long do I have to file?

Florida’s general injury deadline is two years from the assault, so security records should be preserved promptly.

Talk to a Tampa Negligent Security Lawyer

Garage camera footage may be overwritten quickly, and burned-out lights can be replaced before the unsafe condition is documented. Florida also generally gives injured people two years to file a premises liability claim.

Fulgencio Law can review your case at no cost and take steps to preserve records that may be important to your claim. We work on a contingency fee, so you do not pay attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you.

Contact our Tampa office at (813) 463-0123 to discuss what happened and learn more about your options.