For those that have been assaulted, there is a need for justice. For those who were assaulted in a business parking lot, however, they likely seek justice from both the police for the perpetrator and the business owner that failed to protect them.
Georgia law requires owners and occupiers to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises and approaches safe for invitees. This is what is known as negligent security. In negligent-security cases, liability often turns on foreseeability and whether reasonable measures, like lighting, cameras, patrols, access control, etc., were in place. And, whether the property owner knew or should have known about potential security concerns. To prove the latter, prior criminal or violent incidents matter, but the analysis is functional, rather than purely mathematical.
Georgia law
Two guideposts frame modern Georgia law. In Sturbridge Partners v. Walker, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that prior substantially similar crimes can establish foreseeability. And, in close cases, juries decide whether an attack was reasonably predictable.
In Martin v. Six Flags Over Georgia, the Court recognized that a landowner’s duty can extend beyond the property line when the risk originates on the premises and foreseeably spills over to adjacent areas. Together, these decisions focus attention on patterns of crime, security audits and the reasonableness of the owner’s response.
After a violent incident in a parking lot, the legal questions center on what the owner knew, how risks compared to industry norms and whether reasonable precautions were taken under Georgia law. Prompt medical care and a police report are essential, but preservation of evidence, like video footage, lighting conditions, incident histories, etc., often determines whether a claim can be proven.