Las Vegas Negligent Security Lawyer

In short: If you were assaulted, robbed, or otherwise attacked at a hotel, casino, apartment complex, bar, or parking lot, the property owner may share responsibility when poor security made the attack foreseeable and preventable. If you are looking for a negligent security lawyer in Las Vegas, Clark Law Group, PLLC can review what happened, identify the owner and any insurance, and explain how Nevada law applies to your facts. This is a civil injury claim on behalf of the person who was hurt, separate from any criminal case. Consultations are free. On personal-injury matters, you do not pay an attorney fee if there is no recovery. The firm is open 24/7. Call 702-330-3272 or contact the office. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.

What is a negligent security claim in Nevada?

A negligent security claim is a civil injury claim against the owner or operator of a property where a third party attacked you. The claim is not that the owner committed the crime. It is that the owner's failure to take reasonable precautions made a foreseeable attack more likely, and that failure contributed to your injury.

It is a type of premises liability claim, the same body of law behind slip and fall cases, except the hazard is a person rather than a wet floor or a broken step. Nevada law does not make a property owner an insurer of everyone on the property. An attack on the premises does not, by itself, prove the owner did anything wrong. What matters is what the owner knew or should have known, and what it did about it.

A negligent security claim also runs on a different track from the criminal case against the attacker. Police and prosecutors decide whether to charge the attacker. Whether or not anyone is arrested or convicted, you can still ask whether the property's security was reasonable. The two cases use different evidence, different standards, and different deadlines.

When is a Las Vegas hotel or casino responsible for an assault?

Nevada has a specific statute for lodging properties. Under NRS 651.015, an owner or keeper of a hotel, inn, motel, motor court, boardinghouse, or lodging house can be civilly liable for injury or death caused by someone who is not its employee if the attack was foreseeable and the owner failed to take reasonable precautions against it.

The statute works in three steps:

• Foreseeability comes first, and a judge decides it. NRS 651.015(2) says the court determines, as a matter of law, whether the wrongful act was foreseeable and whether the owner had a duty to take reasonable precautions. If the judge finds the attack was not foreseeable, the claim against the property ends there.
• The statute defines "foreseeable." Under NRS 651.015(3), an attack is not foreseeable unless either (a) the owner failed to exercise due care for the safety of the person on the premises, or (b) prior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises and the owner had notice or knowledge of them.
• Then breach. If there was a duty, the question becomes whether the owner failed to take reasonable precautions against that foreseeable act. NRS 651.015(1) requires a preponderance of the evidence that the owner did not exercise due care.

"Premises" is broader than the building. NRS 651.005 includes any parking lot, recreational facility, or other land used or maintained in connection with the hotel or lodging property. Many Las Vegas casinos operate as part of hotel properties, but whether the statute applies to a specific location depends on what that property is and who operates it.

The Nevada Supreme Court explained how the statute works in Estate of Smith v. Mahoney's Silver Nugget, Inc., 127 Nev. 855, 265 P.3d 688 (2011). The court held that a judge may look at prior similar incidents or at other circumstances bearing on whether the property took basic precautions. Prior similar incidents are sufficient but not always necessary. The court also said whether earlier incidents are "similar" is for the judge, who can weigh where on the property they happened, how violent they were, and whether weapons were involved. In that case, the court found no duty, because the earlier incidents did not involve weapons or serious injuries and security had responded to the group involved. The decision shows how fact-specific these claims are.

What about apartments, parking lots, bars, and other property?

For property not covered by the lodging statute, Nevada applies general negligence law. As a rule, no one has a duty to protect another person from a crime. A duty can arise from a special relationship, such as landowner and invitee or business and patron, when the party controlling the premises had reasonable cause to anticipate the attack.

The leading Nevada example is an apartment case. In Scialabba v. Brandise Construction Co., 112 Nev. 965, 921 P.2d 928 (1996), a tenant at a newly built Las Vegas apartment building was stabbed by an attacker who had hidden in an unlocked vacant unit across the hall. The Nevada Supreme Court said "the element of control is the pivotal factor" in deciding who owes a duty. It also repeated that foreseeability of a violent crime does not depend only on notice of prior similar crimes, and can be determined from all of the circumstances. The court found a duty as a matter of law and sent the questions of breach and causation back for trial.

That framework matters in the places where these attacks often happen in the valley:

• Apartment complexes, where the owner or manager controls common areas, gates, locks, vacant units, and lighting.
• Parking lots and garages, where control may sit with the property owner, a management company, or a parking operator.
• Bars, nightclubs, and restaurants, where a business decides how many staff are on duty and how it handles patrons who are escalating.
• Shopping centers and convenience stores, where a landlord and a tenant business may split responsibility for security.

More than one party can have control. A property owner, a management company, and a contract security company may each have a role, and the contracts between them often decide who was responsible for what.

What security failures come up in these claims?

Negligent security claims usually turn on specific, provable gaps: precautions the owner knew were needed, promised, or routinely used elsewhere, and did not have in place. The question is always whether a reasonable owner would have done more, given what this owner knew about the property.

Common issues include:

• Broken or missing locks, unsecured vacant units, propped-open doors, or gates that do not close.
• Poor lighting in parking areas, stairwells, walkways, and entrances.
• Too few security staff, or none, for the size of the crowd or the time of night.
• Untrained or unresponsive security, including guards who saw a fight starting and did not act or call for help.
• Ignored warnings, such as earlier complaints, police calls, or threats involving the same person.
• No working cameras where the property's own policies called for them.
• Over-serving alcohol or failing to remove a patron who was already aggressive.

None of these proves a claim on its own. Each has to be tied to what the owner knew before the attack and to how the attack actually happened.

How is fault divided between the attacker and the property owner?

Under NRS 41.141, a jury can assign percentages of fault. The Nevada Supreme Court has held that fault can be divided between a negligent property owner and the person who intentionally caused the injury. The owner then pays only its own percentage, while the attacker remains liable for the full amount.

That ruling came in a 2012 Nevada Supreme Court decision, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137, involving a patron who was stabbed by another patron. The jury assigned 80% of the fault to the attacker and 20% to the business. The court held that the business was severally liable for only its 20%, and that the attacker remained jointly and severally liable for 100% of the damages. It read the word "negligence" in NRS 41.141(4) to mean "fault," so a negligent defendant's share can be compared with an intentional attacker's share.

Two other parts of NRS 41.141 also matter:

• Your own share of fault. If the property owner argues you were partly at fault, your recovery is not barred as long as your share is not greater than the defendants' combined share. A defense might point to provoking a fight or ignoring a staff warning.
• Intentional torts. NRS 41.141(5)(b) preserves joint and several liability in an action based on an intentional tort. In practice, that is why the attacker can be responsible for the full amount even when the property owner's share is limited.

Because the attacker often has no insurance or assets to collect from, how a jury splits fault can decide how much of a judgment is actually collectible. That is a reason to build the case against the property carefully from the start.

How long do you have to file a negligent security lawsuit in Nevada?

Many Nevada injury lawsuits must be filed within two years under NRS 11.190(4)(e), which also covers claims for a death caused by wrongful act or neglect. Time while the injured person is under 18 is not counted (NRS 11.250). Some situations follow different rules, so get advice early rather than counting on extra time.

The practical deadline is often shorter than the legal one. Video systems overwrite, staff leave, and incident logs get archived. If a family member was killed in an attack, the wrongful death page explains who can bring that claim in Nevada.

What evidence matters in a negligent security case?

The strongest evidence usually shows what the property knew before the attack and what it had in place that night. Prior incident reports, security staffing records, camera footage, lighting and lock conditions, and the police report are often central. Much of it sits with the property, so early preservation requests matter.

• The police report and case number, and the names of responding officers.
• The property's incident report and the names of any security staff or managers who responded.
• Surveillance video of the attack and the time before it. Retention periods vary and footage can be overwritten.
• Prior incident history: earlier calls for service, complaints, or reports of similar acts on the premises.
• Security staffing and post orders for that date and time, and any contract with an outside security company.
• Photos of the scene: lighting, broken locks, gates, doors, and sight lines, taken as soon as you safely can.
• Witness names and phone numbers.
• Medical records from the emergency visit onward, including any counseling or mental health care after the attack.

The personal injury page explains how a Nevada negligence claim usually moves from medical care to settlement or suit.

Assaults can cause catastrophic injuries, and much of the harm is non-economic; see pain and suffering in Nevada.

What to do next after an assault on someone else's property

1. Get medical care. Head injuries and internal injuries are not always obvious at first. Tell your providers how the injury happened.
2. Report the attack to police. Ask for the report or event number before you leave, or as soon as you can.
3. Report it to the property. Ask that an incident report be made, and note the name of the person you spoke with.
4. Photograph the scene and your injuries. Include lighting, doors, locks, gates, and anything broken.
5. Write down what you remember. Note the time, where you were, who was there, and whether security was present or called.
6. Do not give a recorded statement to the property's insurer or risk department before you have advice.
7. Call Clark Law Group. Call 702-330-3272 or request a callback. The firm is open 24/7. Bring the police report number, photos, and medical records to the free consultation.

Who reviews injury work at this firm

C. Jared Clark, Esq. is the designated responsible attorney for Clark Law Group. He earned a Bachelor of Science from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Thomas Jefferson School of Law. During law school he interned for the Honorable John A. Houston, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California, and for the San Diego Public Defender's office. He has lived in Nevada since 1988 and is a member of the State Bar of Nevada, the American Bar Association, and the Nevada Justice Association. Read more about Jared Clark.

The office is at 2320 Potosi St, Las Vegas, NV 89146. The firm is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Last updated October 20, 2026.

Sources

• NRS 651.005 and NRS 651.015 — innkeeper premises and civil liability for injury caused by a non-employee
• NRS 41.141 — comparative negligence and liability of multiple defendants
• NRS 11.190, NRS 11.217, and NRS 11.250 — periods of limitation, adult sexual assault actions, and tolling for minors
• Estate of Smith v. Mahoney's Silver Nugget, Inc., 127 Nev. 855, 265 P.3d 688 (2011) — opinion
• Scialabba v. Brandise Construction Co., 112 Nev. 965, 921 P.2d 928 (1996) — opinion
• Nevada Supreme Court, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012), apportionment between negligent and intentional tortfeasors — opinion

This page is attorney advertising and general information, not legal advice. Statutes and case law change, and how any of them apply depends on the facts. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.