Michigan Negligent Security Attorney

Negligent security is a type of premises liability claim. It applies when a property owner, landlord, or business that controls a property fails to take reasonable steps to protect people from a foreseeable criminal attack, and someone is hurt or killed as a result. Michigan does not impose a sweeping duty to prevent all crime. Instead, the duty is narrow and arises in defined circumstances under MCL 600.5805 and a line of Michigan Supreme Court decisions. Understanding where that duty begins and ends is the central question in nearly every negligent security case.

At Neumann Law Group, our Michigan negligent security attorneys represent people injured by violent crime on property across Traverse City, Grand Rapids, Detroit, and surrounding communities. These cases turn on detailed proof about what the property possessor knew and when. Our work in this area is part of the firm’s broader Michigan premises liability practice, which also covers slip-and-fall, inadequate maintenance, and other dangerous-condition claims.

What Is Negligent Security Under Michigan Law?

Negligent security is a premises liability theory holding that a possessor of land failed to use reasonable care to protect lawful visitors from the foreseeable criminal acts of a third party. A plaintiff must still prove the four elements of any negligence claim: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The threshold issue is duty, because Michigan limits when a property possessor owes any obligation at all regarding the criminal conduct of strangers.

Michigan premises liability law assigns the highest duty of care to invitees, and that status is what makes a negligent security claim possible. The common law distinguishes among invitees, licensees, and trespassers. An invitee is someone on the premises for a purpose tied to the possessor’s business or mutual benefit, such as a store customer or a tenant’s guest, and that relationship creates the limited duty discussed below.

How Negligent Security Cases Begin in Michigan

These cases usually begin with a violent crime in a place the victim expected to be safe: an assault in a Grand Rapids apartment complex common area, a robbery in a poorly lit parking structure near downtown Detroit, or an attack in a hotel corridor. The injuries are often severe, and the person who committed the crime is frequently unknown, judgment-proof, or both. That is why attention turns to the property possessor who controlled the space.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the rate of violent victimizations reported to police was 11.2 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2024, as measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization, 2024). Many of these crimes occur in commercial establishments, parking facilities, and rental housing, the same controlled settings where a negligent security claim can arise.

At Neumann Law Group, our Michigan negligent security lawyers move quickly when a case begins, because the evidence that decides these claims tends to disappear fast. Surveillance footage is often overwritten within days, incident reports get filed away, and witnesses scatter.

How Is Liability Established in a Michigan Negligent Security Case?

Michigan imposes a duty on a merchant only when the merchant has notice that a third party’s criminal acts pose a risk of imminent, foreseeable harm to an identifiable invitee. That duty, established in MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001), is limited to reasonably expediting the involvement of the police. A merchant is not required to provide security guards or other protective measures, and a present, unfolding threat, rather than a history of past crime, is what triggers the obligation.

In Bailey v. Schaaf, 494 Mich 595 (2013), the Michigan Supreme Court extended this same limited duty to landlords. A landlord who is put on notice that a tenant or invitee faces an imminent, foreseeable criminal threat in a common area must reasonably expedite police involvement. Where a landlord’s agents were told of an imminent danger and failed to call the police, the court allowed the claim to proceed past dismissal.

Notice and Foreseeability

Notice is the heart of these cases. The injured person must show that a specific situation was unfolding on the premises that would lead a reasonable possessor to recognize a risk of imminent harm to an identifiable person. Under the MacDonald line, general awareness of neighborhood crime has not, by itself, triggered the duty, and how that holds after Kandil-Elsayed is unsettled. The proof often comes from security logs, prior calls for service, staff statements, and footage of what employees observed before the attack.

How the Premises Liability Framework Changed

Michigan premises liability law shifted substantially in 2023. In Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich 95 (2023), and the companion case Pinsky v. Kroger Co., the Michigan Supreme Court abrogated the long-standing open-and-obvious doctrine as a complete defense to liability. Under the current framework, the obviousness of a hazard is no longer a question of duty decided by a judge. It is folded into the jury’s analysis of breach and the plaintiff’s comparative fault. That ruling addressed dangerous conditions on land, and as of 2026 the MacDonald and Bailey rules remain the governing standard for a possessor’s duty regarding third-party criminal acts.

How Does Michigan’s Comparative Fault Rule Affect Negligent Security Cases?

Michigan follows modified comparative fault under MCL 600.2959. A plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to their own share of fault, and a plaintiff who is found more than 50 percent at fault is barred from recovering noneconomic damages. In negligent security cases, defendants often argue that the injured person provoked the encounter, ignored an obvious danger, or was somewhere they should not have been.

Because fault is generally a question for the jury after Kandil-Elsayed, these arguments rarely end a case at an early stage the way the old open-and-obvious rule once did. At Neumann Law Group, our Michigan personal injury team builds the factual record needed to keep the focus on the property possessor’s failure to act. For a fuller explanation of how fault allocation works, see the firm’s resource on comparative fault in Michigan.

Damages Available in Michigan Negligent Security Cases

A successful negligent security claim can recover both economic and noneconomic damages. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses, rehabilitation and long-term care costs, lost wages, and lost earning capacity. Noneconomic damages compensate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement, and the diminished ability to enjoy daily life. When a criminal attack is fatal, the case proceeds as a wrongful death action under MCL 600.2922.

Building a Michigan negligent security case takes fast evidence preservation, an understanding of how Michigan courts apply the imminent-harm standard, and trial readiness for claims that defense counsel often contest. At Neumann Law Group, our team brings over 200 years of combined experience to injury claims of this kind. To discuss what happened at no cost, call (800) 525-6386 for a free case review.

What Is the Statute of Limitations for Negligent Security in Michigan?

A Michigan negligent security claim is a personal injury action governed by the three-year statute of limitations in MCL 600.5805. The period generally runs from the date of the injury. If the criminal act causes a death, the claim is brought as a wrongful death action under MCL 600.2922 by the personal representative of the estate, still within the three-year window. Filing after the deadline typically bars the claim no matter how strong the underlying facts are.

The Negligent Security Litigation Process in Michigan Courts

A negligent security lawsuit is filed in the Michigan circuit court for the county where the incident occurred or where the defendant is located. Wayne County matters are heard in the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Kent County matters in the 17th Circuit Court in Grand Rapids, and Grand Traverse County matters in the 13th Circuit Court in Traverse City. After filing, the case moves through discovery, where the parties exchange documents, take depositions, and obtain the security records and footage that frequently decide the outcome.

Defendants commonly move for summary disposition, arguing they owed no duty because they had no notice of an imminent threat. After the 2023 changes to premises liability law, more of these disputes reach a jury. Many cases resolve through settlement once the evidence of notice is developed.

Frequently Asked Questions About Negligent Security in Michigan

Does a Property Owner Have to Provide Security Guards in Michigan?

Michigan law does not require a merchant or landlord to provide security guards, cameras, or lighting as a general matter. Under MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001), the duty arises only when the possessor has notice of a third party’s criminal conduct posing a risk of imminent, foreseeable harm to an identifiable person, and even then the duty is limited to reasonably expediting police involvement.

What if the Property Owner Voluntarily Hired Security?

An owner who voluntarily provides security can still face liability, but the analysis stays focused on whether the possessor reasonably responded to a known, imminent threat. At Neumann Law Group, our Michigan negligent security attorneys examine what security staff observed, what they were told, and whether they acted reasonably once a danger became apparent.

Can I Sue if the Attacker Was Never Caught?

Yes. A negligent security claim targets the property possessor’s failure to act, not the criminal directly. Because the attacker is often unidentified or unable to pay a judgment, the claim against the owner or landlord who controlled the premises is frequently the only realistic path to recovery.

How Long Do I Have to File a Negligent Security Claim?

Most Michigan negligent security claims are subject to the three-year personal injury deadline under MCL 600.5805, measured from the date of the injury. Because evidence such as surveillance footage disappears quickly, waiting near the end of that window can make a case much harder to prove. Acting early protects both the claim and the proof.

Related Practice Areas

• Slip and fall accidents are premises liability claims that, after the 2023 changes to Michigan law, are analyzed under breach and comparative fault rather than the old open-and-obvious bar.
• Retail store accidents raise the same questions of notice and reasonable care that govern negligent security in commercial settings.
• Wrongful death claims arising from a fatal criminal attack are governed by MCL 600.2922 and brought by the personal representative of the estate.
• The firm’s attorneys bring trial experience and an understanding of how insurers evaluate and defend premises claims to each negligent security matter.

Talk to a Michigan Negligent Security Attorney

If you or someone you love was seriously injured by crime on property that was not kept reasonably safe, Neumann Law Group can help you understand your options. Our Michigan negligent security attorneys serve clients across Traverse City, Grand Rapids, and Detroit, offer a no-cost case review, are available 24/7, and will travel to clients whose injuries limit their mobility. Call (800) 525-6386 or schedule a free consultation to talk with a Michigan personal injury lawyer about what happened.