Could Better Security Have Saved Laken Riley?

Could Better Security Have Saved Laken Riley?

Could Better Security Have Saved Laken Riley?: The tragic murder of University of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley in February 2024 sparked national attention and prompted a wrongful death lawsuit that raises difficult legal questions about property owner responsibility, campus safety and government liability.

But beyond the specifics of that case, it also highlights a broader reality: Georgia’s legal landscape for negligent security and premises liability claims has changed dramatically.

In April 2025, Gov. Brian Kemp signed Senate Bill 68 into law, ushering in the most significant overhaul of Georgia’s tort system in nearly two decades. While much of the public conversation surrounding the legislation focused on so-called “nuclear verdicts,” the law contains sweeping changes that directly affect how victims pursue negligent security claims and how property owners defend them.

For families, businesses and attorneys alike, understanding those changes is now essential.

When Is a Property Owner Responsible for Crime?

Under Georgia law, property owners are not automatically responsible when a crime occurs on or near their property. Liability generally arises only when a plaintiff can show that the criminal act was reasonably foreseeable and that the property owner failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

For decades, courts evaluated foreseeability under a flexible standard. Evidence that similar crimes had occurred nearby – or that a property owner knew criminal activity was occurring in the area – could support a negligent security claim.

That framework allowed juries to consider the broader circumstances surrounding a crime, including prior incidents and the adequacy of security measures.

Senate Bill 68 changes that analysis in several important ways.

A Higher Bar for Proving Foreseeability

One of the most significant reforms is the law’s new, narrower definition of foreseeability in negligent security cases.

Under SB 68, plaintiffs must now establish foreseeability in one of two specific ways:

• By showing the property owner had a particularized warning of an imminent crime, or
• By proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the owner knew of prior substantially similar crimes on the property or within 500 feet.

This represents a much higher threshold than the previous standard. General knowledge of criminal activity in the surrounding area is no longer sufficient.

For many cases, this change alone could determine whether a lawsuit proceeds past the early stages of litigation.

The New “Call 911” Defense

Another notable provision of SB 68 provides property owners with a potentially powerful defense.

If a property owner receives a particularized warning of a crime and reports it to law enforcement, the statute provides that this action may serve as a complete defense to a negligent security claim.

Supporters argue the provision encourages cooperation with law enforcement and ensures businesses are not unfairly punished for criminal acts they did not commit.

Critics, however, contend the rule could allow property owners to avoid liability even when additional preventative measures might have reduced the risk of harm.

Mandatory Fault Apportionment to the Criminal

The new law also requires juries to allocate fault to the individual who committed the crime.

While that principle may appear obvious, it has important practical consequences. By assigning a percentage of responsibility to the perpetrator—who often has no financial resources—the law can reduce the amount of damages recoverable from property owners or other defendants.

For victims’ families, that can significantly affect the value of a case.

Government Liability Remains a Separate Challenge

When negligent security claims involve public institutions, the legal hurdles are even greater.

Under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, individuals seeking to sue a state agency must comply with strict ante litem notice requirements before filing suit. The notice must be delivered to specific state entities within 12 months of the loss and must include detailed information about the claim.

Georgia courts have historically enforced these requirements with considerable rigidity. Even minor technical errors in an ante litem notice can result in dismissal of the claim.

In addition, damages against state entities are capped at $1 million per claimant, regardless of the severity of the loss.

For families pursuing wrongful death claims against public institutions, these procedural barriers can prove just as significant as the underlying merits of the case.

What the Changes Mean Going Forward

Because SB 68 applies only to incidents occurring after April 21, 2025, many currently pending negligent security cases are still governed by the previous legal standard.

For future claims, however, the law will likely reshape the litigation landscape in several ways:

• Fewer negligent security lawsuits surviving early dismissal
• Greater emphasis on documented prior crimes near the property
• Expanded defenses for property owners
• More complex litigation strategies for plaintiffs

Businesses and property owners may welcome the clearer standards and expanded defenses the law provides.

For victims’ families and their attorneys, the challenge will be navigating a narrower path to accountability in cases involving violent crime.

What is certain is that negligent security litigation in Georgia now operates under a significantly different framework: one that courts, lawyers and property owners will continue to interpret and test in the years ahead.

Georgia’s negligent security laws have changed significantly, and navigating the new legal landscape requires an attorney who understands every detail of the reforms. Whether your case involves a property owner’s failure to prevent a foreseeable crime or a wrongful death claim against a public institution, Haug Barron Law Group is ready to fight for your family’s right to accountability and justice. Contact us today for a free consultation and let us help you find the path forward under Georgia’s evolving legal framework.