Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 837 into law this morning with the effective date of upon its signing. Known as the “tort reform” bill, the new law makes numerous changes to tort law including the law governing negligent security claims. This new law implements a presumption against liability for the owners of multi-family housing complexes if they meet certain conditions. It also modifies apportionment of liability on a jury verdict form. The changes are seemingly designed to reduce the volume of negligent security litigation while simultaneously incentivizing property owners to implement more stringent security measures.

The new law implements a presumption against negligent security liability for the owner or operator of a multifamily residential property assuming fulfillment of several requirements delineated in the bill. The term “multi-family residential property” is defined to include apartments, townhouses, and condominiums which consist of at least five dwelling units on a given parcel.  By its terms, the law permits a presumption against negligent security liability only if the multi-family dwelling complex implements the following security measures:

• A security camera with retrievable footage at points of entry and exit;
• A lighted parking lot, lighting in walkways, laundry rooms, common areas, and porches;
• A one-inch deadbolt in each dwelling unit door;
• A locking device on each window, exterior sliding door, and any other door not used for community purposes;
• A locked pool gate, with only key or fob access;
• A peephole or door viewer on each dwelling unit door that does not include a window or that does not have a window next to the door.
• By January 1, 2025, the owner or principal operator of a multifamily residential property has a crime prevention through environmental design assessment that is no more than 3 years old completed for the property. Such assessment must be performed by a law enforcement agency or a Florida Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Practitioner designated by the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute of the Department of Legal Affairs. The owner or principal operator must remain in substantial compliance with the assessment for purposes of this paragraph.
• By January 1, 2025, the owner or principal operator of a multifamily residential property provides proper crime deterrence and safety training to its current employees. After January 1, 2025, the owner or principal operator must provide such training to an employee within 60 days after his or her hire date.

Additionally, the law alters the verdict form in all negligent security cases by permitting apportionment of fault to the bad actor who committed a crime against the plaintiff.  Before, a jury was unable to apportion fault to the third party criminal actor who intentionally harms a plaintiff.  The prior apportionment scheme is a product of Florida law’s prohibition against assigning comparative negligence for intentional torts. However, the policy argument in opposition to the prior apportionment scheme is that it unfairly sticks the property owner with the bill for plaintiff’s damages despite the fact that the criminal actor is the most directly responsible. The new law sought to rectify this by requiring the trier of fact to consider the fault of all parties who potentially contributed to crime-induced injury while on another’s property.

The changes are substantial departures from the prior law, and they are aimed at reducing negligent security litigation. Arguably, they will deter plaintiffs from pursuing certain negligent security actions. For example, the presumption against liability for multi-family dwelling complexes may deter negligent security lawsuits by creating an additional barrier to recovery, i.e., a heightened burden of proof.  It may also result in increased dismissals at summary judgment. 

The presumption against liability for multi-family dwelling complexes may also reduce negligent security litigation by, quite simply, reducing crime. By incentivizing multi-family dwelling complexes to implement additional safety measures, the change in the law may curtail crime at these properties. The legislature likely anticipates that the complex owners will view the cost of the additional security measures as a small price to pay for the shield from liability offered by the presumption.

Similarly, the addition of the criminal actor to the verdict form could curtail negligent security litigation by increasing the risk of an adverse verdict for the plaintiff. Allowing a jury to apportion fault to a criminal actor significantly reduces the incentive for a person injured by a criminal act to sue the property owner. Juries may apportion the bulk of a plaintiff’s damages to the criminal actor, finding that the criminal actor, rather than the property owner, is most directly responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries

The new law will likely stem the tide of negligent security litigation.