Start the conversation


Negligent Security

We’re trial lawyers. Our core competency – above everything else – is trying cases to juries. And we specialize in beating giants.

Minneapolis Negligent Security Lawyer

When you’re on someone else’s property, you expect to be kept safe. Other than being safe from hazards on the property that could injure you, you also expect to be secure from attacks from violent people who could also enter the property. If a dangerous person enters the premises and harms you, then you could have a negligent security claim on your hands.

A Minneapolis negligent security lawyer could help guide you through your legal claim and ensure all points are covered. When you hire an attorney from Madia Newville, you can feel confident that we’ll fully investigate what happened so that we can determine who was truly liable for the injuries that you suffered. Once we figure out who was at fault, we can start working towards recovering financial compensation for your damages.

What Is Negligent Security?

Many people don’t know what negligent security claims entail. It’s important to know what it’s comprised of so that you can recognize if you’ve been a victim of this type of negligence and if you have a claim against a property owner for jeopardizing your safety. When a third party enters the property and commits a violent offense that injures you, then that would fall under negligent security.

While you might think the third party is the only one at fault for these damages that happen to you, that’s not always the case. The property owner or the possessor of the property could have had the duty to provide you with security while you were on their premises. Some examples of landowners who are responsible for your safety while you’re on their property are business owners, schools, and residential property owners.

Depending on the situation, the property owner could be held liable after you’re injured while on their property by a third party. For example, if you’re in class at your university and a third party comes into your classroom and causes harm or is violent, then the school could be responsible for failing to keep you safe by taking proper security measures to keep violent people out of your classroom.

Some instances where negligent security might apply are:

  • Robbery
  • Assault
  • Shootings
  • Battery
  • Rape

While you likely will also want to file a claim against the person who committed the violent act or crime against you, it could benefit you more to file against the property owner who had a duty to provide you with security as well. Our Minneapolis negligent security attorney can help you determine if a property owner’s negligence contributed to the injuries and damages you suffered as the result of someone else’s violent actions.

Failed Security Measures

If a property owner has security measures in place to keep their visitors safe, then this could mitigate any crimes from happening on the premises. However, there’s only so much that security measures can prevent. Even if the property owner has security cameras, a security system, or a guard at the doors, any of these precautions in place could fail.

If security cameras aren’t pointing in the right direction, or a guard misses their shift, or a security system fails, then a third party could commit a violent act even though you had security measures in place. Any failing of a security measure could enable visitors to suffer from injuries and other damages. Even if the systems don’t fail themselves, if they’re not completely up to date or adequate, they could still be unable to prevent a crime from happening.

If you were on someone’s property when you were harmed by someone else’s violence, and they failed to have working security measures in place, then their negligence could make them partly liable for your injuries. Our negligent security lawyer could help you determine their level of fault and start fighting to recover damages for you.

What Properties Qualify?

Negligent security falls under premises liability, which makes sense since the claims have to do with property owners and their visitors. However, these cases have to do with specific types of properties where crimes can be committed. Here are the different types of properties that negligent security attorneys see claims rise from after a violent crime committed by a third party:

  • Malls
  • Parking garages
  • College dorms
  • Libraries
  • Businesses
  • Schools
  • Government-owned property

It can be difficult to determine whether or not what you experienced falls under negligent security. That’s why consulting an attorney can be so helpful. With the legal experience of Madia Newville on your side, you can feel confident that your claim is being properly handled and that you’ll get the justice you deserve.

Our Firm Is Prepared to Fight for You

When you’ve been harmed by someone else’s negligence, it’s important to hold that person responsible for their actions or inaction. You shouldn’t have to deal with your injuries and damages alone—they should give you the compensation that you deserve. That’s where a Minneapolis negligent security lawyer is beneficial in your legal endeavors.

At Madia Newville, we understand that this type of claim can seem confusing. We have experience with negligent security claims, which is why you can trust us to handle this—we’ll guide you through the legal process and ensure you’re informed every step of the way. Contact our office today so we can get started on your potential claim and ensure you get what you deserve.


We have a process that works in getting exceptional results for our clients. 

We are trial lawyers who prepare every case for trial from Day 1. Investigation and legal research are the first things we do, and we spend a lot of time on them. Because we haven’t filed the case yet, we have complete control – the defendant has no say and we want to use this time wisely.  We interview witnesses that can help us prove the case.  We’ll ask you for all relevant documents in your possession and review those carefully as well.  We also will spend some time conducting legal research about unique issues in the case.  We pull the jury instructions that the judge will ultimately charge the jury with after closing arguments at trial. 

Our next step is typically to send a demand letter to the defendant. In the letter, we thoroughly lay out: the facts surrounding the defendant’s misconduct; the applicable law (including statutory and case citations) that make clear that the defendant broke the law; an analysis of your damages and the defendant’s monetary exposure; a demand for a monetary amount to settle the claim; and an instruction to preserve all relevant evidence, including electronic evidence. The point of this letter is to give the defendant a chance to do the right thing and pay a fair amount before litigation, and to give the defendant an opportunity to present any defenses or evidence it wants us to consider before moving forward.  Sometimes we skip the demand letter if there are strategic reasons to move straight to filing, but we typically give defendants a chance to do the right thing.

If early negotiations fail, great – we file a Complaint and serve the defendant with it. A Complaint is a legal document that states the facts of what happened and alleges how the defendant broke the law. It formally starts the lawsuit.  Many lawyers draft complaints in a general and relatively vague way, just to get it done and filed – because that’s all that’s really required.  We take a different view. We view the Complaint as our first chance to tell your story to the judge, and we take it seriously. So we draft detailed complaints and include legal citations to statutory and judicial authority on unique points.  Sometimes we’ll include a number of exhibits, diagrams, or other demonstrative aids to help the Court understand our claims.  A secondary benefit of this approach is that defense lawyers reading the Complaint can become educated on the problems of their case and the state of the law – sometimes this leads them to reach out to us shortly after service of the Complaint to re-initiate settlement negotiations.  Of course, by that time, the price for settlement has gone up.

Some lawyers view written discovery as a necessary evil – something to get done and out of the way before depositions.  Not us.  Written discovery is a gift and an opportunity.  We spend a great deal of time crafting requests for documents and interrogatories (questions for the defendant to answer in writing) that are specific, detailed, and tailored to get what we need to prove our case.  Many lawyers – even great ones – think written discovery is a waste of time because defense lawyers typically answer them on behalf of their clients and can try to stonewall with legalese and objections.  We view this as a wonderful opportunity.  In our experience, most defense lawyers can’t help themselves when answering discovery: they over-state their defenses and make assertions that their clients will not be able to support in testimony. So we get to commit the defendant to defenses that they can’t back up, leading to contradictions, confusion, and chaos in their depositions later on.  We also use Requests for Admission – which many lawyers don’t.  The Federal Rules and Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure allow us to ask defendants to “admit” certain facts.  We send them RFAs that are very difficult for them to deny.  Of course, they do it anyway, but that sets them up later for cost and fee-shifting, which the Rules mandate for defendants that deny RFAs that are later proven true.  And usually, we can get the defendants’ own witnesses to admit facts that their defense lawyers denied in RFA.  That’s a great situation that leads to more chaos and confusion on the defense side.

One last point on written discovery – we send multiple waves of it throughout discovery.  We typically send 3 or 4 sets of written discovery requests to defendants throughout discovery.  This compounds the problems for them, because the defense lawyers continue to overstate their defenses, but now run into contradictions from not just the defendant witnesses’ deposition testimony, but also their own previous discovery responses.  This makes for a great record that we can present to the judge at dispositive motions, and use for impeachment at trial.

This is our chance to question relevant witnesses, on the record with a court reporter (we typically videotape important depositions as well). We get to confront the defense witnesses with all of the evidence we’ve developed through written discovery and document production. By this time, the defendant put its witnesses in an impossible position through its written defenses, which are often untrue and indefensible.  So the witness has to either lie to support the defense, or admit it’s not true.  That’s a dilemma that works for our clients either way, no matter which option the witness takes.  We use depositions to expose contradictions, create a record for dispositive motions, lock witnesses into their stories so that we can impeach them later at trial, and sometimes, to show defense lawyers how hopeless their case is.  We often calls from defense counsel shortly after depositions of their clients, seeking to re-start settlement negotiations.

The defendant will usually make a motion for summary judgment after discovery, asking the Court to throw out the case without having a jury trial. Because we’ve hit discovery so hard – both through written discovery and depositions – this is a tough motion for defense counsel to write in our cases.  We draft our response for the Court and now get to bring everything together: the admissions, contradictions, nonsense, and obvious fact disputes that we’ve uncovered through discovery.  We tell a compelling story that wraps everything together for the Court and makes clear that the defense motion has to be denied, and the defendant needs to face a jury for its conduct.

Sometimes, we’ll even make an affirmative motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to grant judgment in favor of our client without a trial. These motions are generally rare for plaintiffs to make, because the defendant can usually point to some fact dispute on its intent or some other factor that necessitates a trial. But we make affirmative summary judgment motions significantly more than is typical for plaintiffs, and that’s because the work we put in during discovery helps build a fantastic record to do so.

After the Court denies the defense motion for summary judgment, the defendant has only 2 options: 1) do the right thing and pay you a fair amount to our client to settle your claim (usually much, much more at this point than the defendant could have paid at the beginning of the case to settle); or 2) face a jury for its conduct and risk an enormous verdict. This is the dilemma that we have been creating and forcing the defendant into for the entire case. We’ll engage in settlement negotiations at this point from a position of extreme strength, mainly because most defendants are (rightly) terrified of facing a jury to defend their conduct.

This is, candidly, our favorite part of the case – why we went to law school: to hold the powerful accountable before juries.  We prepare heavily for trial, including: detailed witness preparation, focus groups, and mock trials.  At this point, the potential outcomes and consequences for the defendant are much more severe than if it simply did the right thing at the beginning of the case and paid a fair amount to compensate our client for its misconduct.  As we advocate to the jury for our client, we’re also mindful of protecting the record so that defendants will be unsuccessful in attacking the verdict in post-trial motions or appeal.

What Our Clients Say