Who do I sue


Choosing the right defendants in a Georgia negligent-security case can shape both the strength of the claim and the chance of an actual recovery. More than one party may share responsibility, and Georgia’s fault rules make it common to name several at once.

Parties who may bear responsibility

A negligent-security claim often involves several potential defendants, each tied to a different role in the property’s safety:

  • The property owner, who owes invitees ordinary care under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, including reasonable protection against foreseeable criminal acts.
  • A tenant or business operator that controlled the specific area where the attack happened, since the duty generally follows control of the premises.
  • A property-management company responsible for maintenance and security decisions.
  • A security company retained to guard the site, along with an individual guard whose conduct fell short.
  • The criminal attacker, whose deliberate act caused the harm.

Identifying who actually controlled the relevant space is often the key, because the party in control is typically the one charged with keeping it reasonably safe.

Why naming the right parties matters

Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, a Georgia jury parcels out the fault by percentage to everyone whose conduct fed the injury, the criminal attacker included. This has two practical effects. First, a defendant will often try to shift blame onto others, so naming all responsible parties keeps the full picture before the jury. Second, collectibility matters. A criminal attacker is frequently judgment-proof, which is one reason injured people look to an owner, manager, or security company whose negligence helped enable a foreseeable crime. Leaving out a responsible party can leave fault assigned to someone who cannot pay. For negligent-security incidents after April 21, 2025, SB 68 also presses fault toward the wrongdoer: an apportionment is presumptively unreasonable if the share assigned to the parties who committed the wrongful conduct is less than the share assigned to the owner, occupier, or security contractor.

What still must be proven against each

Naming a defendant is only the starting point. Against each one, the injured person must show that the party owed a duty, failed to use reasonable care against a foreseeable danger, and thereby helped cause the harm. For incidents before April 21, 2025, foreseeability was weighed against earlier similar incidents and the wider context, the framework Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (1997), lays out. Georgia’s 2025 tort-reform law (SB 68) added a dedicated negligent-security article that narrows this for later incidents, requiring a particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct, or prior substantially similar wrongful conduct on the premises or within 500 yards, of which the owner or occupier had actual knowledge. Any blame placed on the injured plaintiff trims the award and erases it once that share reaches 50 percent, and O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 fixes a two-year limit for filing against each defendant.

The bottom line

In a Georgia negligent-security case the potential defendants can include the owner, a tenant or manager who controlled the area, a security company and its guard, and the attacker. Selecting the right parties depends on who controlled the premises and who can answer for the harm, with Georgia’s apportionment rules driving how fault and recovery are divided.


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