When is a Georgia apartment complex liable for a tenant being attacked on site?


A Georgia apartment complex can be liable when a tenant is attacked on the property if the assault was reasonably foreseeable and the complex failed to provide the security that ordinary care required. As with other negligent security cases, foreseeability and the adequacy of the measures taken are what separate a viable claim from a tragic event with no liability.

The complex’s duty to tenants

A landlord who invites tenants to live on the property owes them ordinary care to keep the premises and common areas safe under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, and O.C.G.A. § 44-7-14 also holds a landlord responsible for keeping the premises in repair. When the risk of a criminal attack is foreseeable, that duty can include taking reasonable steps to protect tenants from third-party violence in the areas the landlord controls, such as parking lots, breezeways, stairwells, and gated entrances.

The complex is not an insurer of tenant safety. Liability does not follow automatically from a crime on the property. The tenant generally must show the attack was foreseeable and that a failure of reasonable security allowed it to happen.

When foreseeability and inadequate security combine

Liability typically requires both a foreseeable risk and a security failure that caused the harm. For claims arising on or after April 21, 2025, Georgia’s tort-reform law (SB 68) codified the negligent-security standard at O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51, generally requiring the tenant to show the criminal conduct was foreseeable because the landlord had a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct or actual knowledge of prior substantially similar crimes on the premises. Foreseeability is still informed by factors such as:

  • Prior similar crimes on or near the complex, weighed by proximity, timing, frequency, and similarity.
  • The landlord’s actual knowledge of a developing danger, such as a specific threat or a known security breakdown.
  • Conditions the landlord knew posed a heightened risk in the areas it controlled.

If the risk was foreseeable, the focus shifts to the measures the complex provided. Broken perimeter gates, non-working locks, burned-out lighting in common areas, disabled cameras, or abandoned security patrols can show a failure of ordinary care when they allowed a foreseeable attack. The tenant must connect that failure to the injury, showing reasonable security would likely have prevented or deterred the assault.

Apportionment and the criminal’s role

Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, a jury parcels out fault to each responsible actor, reaching even those absent from the lawsuit. In a tenant-attack case the assailant is handed a percentage right alongside the complex. SB 68 went further for negligent-security claims: a jury must assign fault to the criminal who caused the harm, and a verdict putting less than half the fault on that perpetrator is presumed unreasonable and can be set aside. Any share of fault on the tenant reduces the recovery, and a tenant 50% or more at fault recovers nothing.

The bottom line

A Georgia apartment complex is liable for a tenant’s on-site attack when the assault was reasonably foreseeable, now measured under SB 68’s tightened standard of prior similar crimes or a particularized warning, and the complex failed to provide the reasonable security ordinary care demanded, allowing the harm. Because the assailant’s conduct is also weighed through apportionment, these cases turn closely on the foreseeability evidence and the specific security failures shown.


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