Every negligent-security case in Arizona eventually comes down to one word: foreseeable. Lawyers for property owners like to argue that no one could have predicted a random act of violence. Victims and their attorneys usually see it differently. Somewhere in the history of the property, there were signs. The question is whether the owner noticed them, and what it did next.
This post explains how Arizona courts think about foreseeability, why it matters after a shooting or stabbing, and how it connects to a claim against the owner of the property where you were hurt.
A duty that comes with control
In Arizona, an owner who controls a property owes the people on it a duty of reasonable care against foreseeable third-party crime. Landlords, hotel operators, shopping center owners, bar owners, and associations that manage shared spaces can all fall into this category.
The leading case is Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Association, decided by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1997. The plaintiff was a guest at a graduation party at a condominium complex who was shot in the parking lot. The trial court and the court of appeals said the association owed him no duty. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that an association controlling common areas, much like a landlord, owed residents and their guests reasonable care against foreseeable criminal acts in those areas.
Foreseeability sets the level of care
Here is the part many people miss. Arizona does not treat foreseeability as an on-off switch for whether a duty exists. Instead, foreseeability defines how much security the owner needed to provide.
Think of it as a sliding scale. A property with no history of crime might meet its duty with basic lighting and working locks. A complex where tenants have reported break-ins, armed robberies, and fights in the parking lot needs more: perhaps cameras, controlled access, patrols, or trained guards. The more an owner knew, or should have known, the more it was expected to do.
Who decides whether the owner did enough
Whether the owner acted reasonably is generally a question for a jury, not a judge. That is significant for victims. It means a property owner often cannot end the case early just by insisting the attack was unpredictable. Ordinary Arizonans get to weigh the evidence and decide whether the security in place matched the risk.
The kinds of evidence that prove foreseeability
Building a foreseeability case is detective work. Useful evidence often includes:
- Police call logs and crime reports for the address and surrounding blocks
- Prior complaints from tenants, guests, or employees
- Incident reports kept by the property's own staff
- Security vendor contracts, including any cuts or cancellations
- Emails or meeting notes where managers discussed safety problems
- Repair requests for broken gates, doors, lights, or cameras
Some of this material sits in public databases. Much of it is held by the owner and only comes out through a lawsuit. Surveillance footage is the most fragile item on the list, which is why speed matters.
How this plays out after a shooting or stabbing
Arizona treats a stabbing the same way it treats a shooting. If the attack was foreseeable and the owner failed to provide reasonable security, the owner may be liable regardless of the weapon. The claim targets the property owner, not just the attacker, and it runs on its own track apart from any criminal prosecution.
Other rules that shape the claim
Foreseeability is the heart of the case, but three other Arizona rules matter too:
- Time limits. A surviving victim's case is generally due within two years of the attack, while a family's wrongful-death case is generally due two years after the death.
- Shared fault. Under pure comparative fault, your recovery shrinks by your share of responsibility, but it is not barred, unless you intentionally caused the harm.
- No damage caps. The Arizona Constitution forbids caps on damages for injury or death.
A firm built around these cases
The Haggard Law Firm, based in Coral Gables, Florida, has handled nearly 500 negligent-security cases across the country. It won a $102.7 million verdict, which stands as the largest negligent-security verdict in U.S. history.
Michael A. Haggard holds a Florida law license and is not licensed in Arizona. Since crime-victim litigation is the firm's central focus and it has a national profile in these cases, he regularly joins Arizona matters as co-counsel with a lawyer licensed in the state and, if the court permits, appears pro hac vice for that case. Arizona clients are represented jointly with local counsel.
Find out what the record shows
If you suspect the property where you were attacked had warning signs, the firm can review your situation without charge. Reach the office at (305) 446-5700. The firm works on contingency, so you owe no attorney's fees unless it recovers money for you.
This is attorney advertising offered for general educational purposes. It is not legal advice and creates no attorney-client relationship. Michael A. Haggard is licensed in Florida, not Arizona. Past results are no guarantee of future outcomes.
