When a Business Is Liable for an Assault

In the assault and battery cases we handle, the person who threw the punch or pulled the knife is always responsible, but a harder question is whether the bar, store, hotel or apartment owner where it happened shares responsibility. That question can decide whether an injured person is paid at all, and California courts answer it with a specific set of rules about foreseeability and reasonable precautions.

Eric Young argued Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) before the California Supreme Court, as described in Eric Young's bio, and the Judicial Council still quotes that decision in the jury instruction on a business owner's duty to protect against crime. The quotes in this guide come from the Judicial Council's 2026 instructions, not from any summary of our own.

How does a negligent security claim work, step by step?

Identify who controlled the place. A premises claim can be brought against whoever owned, leased, occupied or controlled the property (CACI 1000). A decision the Judicial Council cites under that instruction says control alone is enough, so a tenant business, a management company or a landlord may each be in the picture.
Identify the relationship. The duty in CACI 1005 runs from a business open to the public to its patrons and guests, and from a landlord to its tenants. Decisions quoted there describe it as a duty that comes from that "special relationship."
Gather the foreseeability evidence. Prior assaults, robberies or fights at the property, calls to police, complaints from customers or tenants, and warnings from staff all bear on whether the owner could reasonably anticipate the attack.
The judge decides whether a duty existed. Under the Directions for Use for CACI 1005, whether the owner had a duty is a question of law for the court. A decision quoted there describes that decision as a balance between how foreseeable the crime was and the burden of the security measures proposed.
The jury decides whether the precautions were reasonable. If there was a duty, the jury decides whether the steps the owner took were "adequate and reasonable under the circumstances" (CACI 1005).
Prove causation and harm. The owner's negligence must have been a substantial factor in causing the injury (CACI 1000).
Watch the deadline. A lawsuit for assault, battery or an injury caused by another's neglect generally must be filed within two years (Code of Civil Procedure 335.1).

How do courts weigh foreseeability?

The Judicial Council's Sources and Authority for CACI 1005 quote several California decisions that, read together, show how the duty question is decided:

What the evidence shows	What the quoted decisions say it can mean	Decision quoted under CACI 1005
Prior similar violent incidents at the location	"Heightened" foreseeability; only then does the duty include providing guards	Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005)
No earlier incident like this one	The absence of prior occurrences "does not end the duty inquiry"; all the circumstances count	Janice H. v. 696 North Robertson, LLC (2016)
A simple, inexpensive precaution would have helped	Where harm can be prevented by simple means, a lesser degree of foreseeability may be required	Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc. (2004)
A costly measure, such as hiring guards	Where the burden is great, a high degree of foreseeability may be required	Wiener, quoting earlier decisions
General rowdiness by bar patrons	Does not by itself make a different kind of crime, such as an aggressive parking lot assault, reasonably foreseeable	Williams v. Fremont Corners, Inc. (2019)
What the owner actually knew	Foreseeability is tested by what the defendant knows, not what it could have learned	Margaret W. v. Kelley R. (2006)

Because the duty question turns on what the owner knew before the attack, evidence of earlier incidents can be the center of the case. Proving what a property owner knew in advance is a familiar problem in premises cases; our guide on how to prove a property owner knew about a hazard covers the kinds of records that can show it.

What did Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill say?

The Judicial Council quotes Delgado twice under CACI 1005. First, a decision the Judicial Council cites there says that only when heightened foreseeability of third party crime exists, "shown by prior similar incidents or other indications of a reasonably foreseeable risk of violent criminal assaults in that location," does a business proprietor's duty include an obligation to provide guards.

Second, the same decision, as quoted, says a proprietor with no duty to hire a security guard "still owes a duty of due care to a patron or invitee by virtue of the special relationship," and that other circumstances, apart from the failure to provide guards, may give rise to liability. In plain terms: even where a bar or store did not have to post security, it can still be responsible for how its staff responded to a threat developing in front of them.

The instruction itself puts the rule simply: an owner of a business open to the public, or a landlord, "must use reasonable care to protect" its patrons, guests or tenants from another person's criminal conduct on its property "if the owner/landlord can reasonably anticipate that conduct" (CACI 1005). The general duty behind it is Civil Code 1714(a): everyone is responsible for an injury caused by a lack of ordinary care in the management of their property.

Does it matter whether it was a bar, a store or an apartment?

The setting changes who owes the duty and where it applies. For a business open to the public, a decision the Judicial Council quotes under CACI 1005 describes a duty to take reasonable care to discover that harmful acts by third persons are being done or are likely to be done, and to warn visitors or otherwise protect them. For a landlord, the quoted decisions describe a duty to take reasonable measures to secure areas under the landlord's control, such as common areas, against foreseeable crimes by third parties.

A bar raises an extra point. California law says that serving alcohol to an adult is not the legal cause of injuries the drinker later causes (Civil Code 1714(b)). That rule concerns the act of serving. A negligent security claim is different: it asks whether the bar took reasonable steps against a violent incident it could anticipate. Our guide on whether a bar or winery can be sued after a drunk-driving crash covers the serving rule.

Care facilities follow additional rules; for an older adult hurt by another resident, see when a facility is responsible for an attack by another resident.

Who pays if the business is responsible?

A business or landlord found negligent may have its own liability insurance, which is one reason these claims matter: the attacker's own policy generally will not pay for a deliberate act, because an insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured (Insurance Code 533). Our guide on who else can pay when the attacker cannot covers the other options, including restitution and the state's victim compensation program.

What changes the answer?

The attacker worked for the business. A bouncer, guard or clerk who attacks a customer raises a separate question of the employer's responsibility for its employee (CACI 3720 and 426); see when an employer is responsible for its employee's attack.

You were working when you were attacked. Claims against your own employer generally go through workers' compensation (Labor Code 3600), but claims against a negligent property owner who is not your employer stay open (Labor Code 3852); see whether workers' comp is your only option after an assault at work.

The property belongs to a public entity. A park, transit station or public building brings a six-month written claim requirement (Government Code 911.2), and public entities are not liable for failing to provide enough police protection (Government Code 845); see assaults at a public facility.

There were no prior incidents. That does not end the inquiry, according to a decision quoted under CACI 1005, but it makes the foreseeability showing harder, especially for costly measures such as guards.

The attack happened off the property. A decision the Judicial Council cites under CACI 1000 says a landowner's duty can reach injuries off site when the property is maintained in a way that exposes people to an unreasonable risk there. Whether that applies depends heavily on the facts.

What could this look like? An example

For example, imagine a man who is attacked in the parking lot of a Santa Rosa sports bar after closing time. Police reports show three earlier fights in the same lot that year, two of them after a patron was ejected, and the bar's own incident log mentions all three. The bar had no one watching the lot, and the lights at the far end had been out for weeks.

Under CACI 1005, a judge would first decide whether the bar owed a duty to take security steps in the lot, weighing the earlier fights against the burden of measures such as fixing the lights, walking ejected patrons out, or posting a guard. Because there were prior similar incidents, the heightened foreseeability described in the Delgado quote may support even the more burdensome measures. A jury would then decide whether what the bar did was reasonable, and whether its failures were a substantial factor in the injury. The attacker remains responsible too. This example is made up to show how the rules fit together; it says nothing about any real case.

What mistakes do people make after an assault at a business?

Assuming that because the attacker was arrested, there is no claim against anyone else.
Waiting to ask for surveillance video, which many systems record over on a schedule.
Not writing down the names of staff, bouncers or managers who saw the incident or were warned about the attacker.
Treating the absence of earlier incidents as the end of the matter, when the quoted decisions say all the circumstances count.
Missing the six-month claim deadline when the property is public, or the two-year deadline for everyone else.

What should I do this week?

Get medical care and keep every record and bill.
Report the attack to the police department or the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office and ask for the report number.
Send the business or landlord a written request to keep all video, incident reports and staff schedules from that day.
Write down what you remember about lighting, staffing, locks and anything said by employees.
Follow the checklist in our guide on what to do in the first week after an assault.
Put the deadlines on your calendar using our guide to California personal injury deadlines.

Frequently asked questions

Is a business automatically responsible for a crime on its property?

No. A decision the Judicial Council cites under CACI 1001 says an owner is not the insurer of a visitor's safety. The duty in CACI 1005 applies to criminal conduct the owner can reasonably anticipate, and the precautions owed depend on the circumstances.

Does the business have to hire security guards?

Only when foreseeability is heightened, for example by prior similar incidents or other signs of a risk of violent assault at that location, according to the Delgado decision as quoted under CACI 1005. Simpler measures can be required on a lesser showing.

Can I sue my landlord after an attack in my apartment complex?

Possibly. The decisions quoted under CACI 1005 describe a landlord's duty to take reasonable measures to secure areas under its control, such as common areas, against foreseeable crimes. Broken gates, locks or lighting the landlord knew about are often central facts.

Who decides whether the attack was foreseeable?

The judge decides whether a duty existed, including how foreseeable the crime was, and the jury decides whether the owner's precautions were reasonable (CACI 1005, Directions for Use).

Where would the case be filed?

Usually in the superior court of the county where the attack happened. For our area, see what to expect at Sonoma County Superior Court in an injury case. Local agencies are listed on our Sonoma County page.

Can I still bring a claim if the attacker was never caught?

Yes. A claim against the property owner is about the owner's own negligence, so it does not depend on identifying or convicting the attacker, though police reports help show what happened.

If you were attacked at a bar, store, hotel or apartment complex, contact Young Law Group today at (707) 343-0556 or through our contact page for a free consultation.

When is a bar, store or apartment owner responsible for an assault on its property in California?