Should a Georgia business have hired security guards to prevent my attack?


Whether a business was obligated to post guards is judged by Georgia’s standard of ordinary care, not by hindsight. The law does not require every establishment to employ security personnel; it asks whether a reasonable operator, knowing what this business knew, would have provided guards to address a foreseeable danger.

No automatic duty to hire guards

Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, an owner or occupier must use ordinary care to keep the premises and approaches safe for invitees, and that duty can extend to foreseeable criminal acts. Nothing in Georgia law makes guards mandatory across the board. A small shop in a low-crime area may meet its duty with locks and lighting alone, while a large venue with a record of violence may need more. The reasonableness of any particular measure, including guards, is measured against the level of risk the business faced.

When guards may have been a reasonable response

Hiring security tends to become relevant where the threat of violent crime was both serious and foreseeable. Georgia courts gauge foreseeability through prior substantially similar incidents, an approach drawn from Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v. Walker, alongside the totality of the circumstances at the site. Conditions that can point toward a need for guards include:

  • A documented pattern of assaults, robberies, or other violent crime on the property.
  • Large crowds, late hours, or events that concentrate risk.
  • Prior warnings, complaints, or police involvement the business ignored.

Even where guards were warranted, the analysis stays practical: the question is whether a reasonable operator would have added that layer of protection, not whether guards could theoretically have stopped any conceivable crime.

Proving the absence of guards caused harm

A business’s failure to hire guards supports a claim only if it helped cause the injury. The injured person generally must show that reasonable security personnel would likely have deterred or prevented the attack. Should the case reach a jury, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 splits the fault in percentages among the business, the injured person, and the assailant. The injured person’s slice is deducted from the recovery, and a slice of 50 percent leaves nothing. Time to file is capped at the two years O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 allows.

The bottom line

A Georgia business is not required to hire guards in every case, but it may answer for an attack when posting security was a reasonable response to a foreseeable danger and its absence helped cause the harm. The answer depends on the property’s crime history, the precautions a careful operator would have taken, and how Georgia divides fault among everyone involved.


This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and Georgia law may change. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney.

Leave a Reply