Negligent Security Lawyer in Traverse City

Premises Liability Claims for Criminal Attacks in Northern Michigan

When someone is attacked or assaulted on another person’s property, the question isn’t only about who committed the act. It’s also about whether the property owner did enough to prevent it. Negligent security is a premises liability claim that arises when a property owner, landlord, or controlling business fails to take reasonable steps to protect people from a foreseeable criminal attack. At Miller Embury PLLC, we handle these claims as part of our premises liability practice, serving injured clients throughout Traverse City, Northern Michigan, and Western Michigan from our offices in Traverse City and Ludington.

If you or someone you love was injured in a criminal attack on someone else’s property, we want to hear what happened. Call us at (888) 224-1239 to talk through the details at no charge.

How Michigan Law Defines a Property Owner’s Duty in Criminal-Act Cases

A negligent security claim requires proving four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. In Michigan, the duty element follows a narrow, notice-based standard established by the Michigan Supreme Court in MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich 322 (2001). Under that ruling, a merchant’s duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts arises only when a present situation on the premises creates a risk of imminent, foreseeable harm to an identifiable person. Even then, the duty is limited to reasonably expediting police involvement.

In Bailey v. Schaaf, 494 Mich 595 (2013), the Michigan Supreme Court extended this same limited duty to landlords in common areas of rental properties. What that means in practice: a property owner’s general awareness of crime in the neighborhood, or even past incidents at the location, doesn’t automatically create a duty. The duty is triggered by notice of an unfolding threat. Proving what the property possessor knew and when they knew it is often the central issue in these cases, and that kind of evidence is developed through formal discovery.

Common Hazards & Properties in Negligent Security Claims

Physical conditions on a property can make it easier for criminal harm to occur. Courts look at whether those conditions were present and whether the possessor had notice of the threat that materialized.

Conditions that frequently appear in these claims include:

• Inadequate lighting in parking lots, stairwells, and common areas
• Broken or malfunctioning locks and gates that allow unauthorized access
• Absent or inadequately trained security personnel at locations where threats were foreseeable
• Missing or nonfunctioning surveillance cameras
• Failure to patrol areas with known criminal activity

These claims can arise at apartment complexes, hotels and motels, bars and nightclubs, retail parking lots, and event venues. The property type matters because it shapes what level of awareness a reasonable possessor would have had about threats to people on the premises.

Michigan’s 2023 Premises Liability Changes & Comparative Fault

On July 28, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc. and the companion case Pinsky v. Kroger, fundamentally changing how premises liability claims are evaluated in Michigan. The open-and-obvious doctrine, which had previously served as a complete defense, was eliminated. A hazard’s visibility is now folded into the breach and comparative fault analysis rather than used to cut off a claim entirely.

That change applies broadly to premises liability, but the MacDonald and Bailey notice-based duty rules remain the governing standard for third-party criminal acts specifically. These are distinct frameworks, and understanding how they interact shapes how a claim is built. Michigan also follows modified comparative fault: a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in proportion to their share of fault, and a plaintiff found more than 50 percent at fault can’t recover noneconomic damages.

Filing Deadlines & Where Traverse City Cases Are Heard

Michigan’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including negligent security claims, is three years from the date of injury under MCL 600.5805(2). Missing that deadline typically ends the right to pursue a claim. Civil cases seeking damages over $25,000 in Grand Traverse County are filed with the 13th Circuit Court in Traverse City.

Negligent security cases depend heavily on evidence: police reports, security footage, incident logs, and witness statements. That evidence can disappear faster than most people expect. Surveillance footage is routinely overwritten within days, and witnesses’ memories fade. The sooner a claim is evaluated, the better the chance of preserving what’s needed.

Why Injured Clients in Northern Michigan Work with Miller Embury PLLC

Negligent security claims are built on evidence, and building that evidence requires a legal team willing to push through the discovery process rather than accept an early low offer. Our attorneys are personally involved in each case we handle. We don’t hand cases off. When litigation is the right path, we take it.

Our team brings a combined 45 years of legal experience and has secured millions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts for injured clients throughout Northern and Western Michigan. We know the 13th Circuit Court and the local legal landscape, and we put that familiarity to work from the first day of a case.

Talk to Our Team About Your Claim

Your first conversation with us costs nothing. We offer free consultations and handle personal injury matters on a contingency fee basis: you pay no legal fees unless we recover compensation for you.

If you were injured in a criminal attack on someone else’s property in Traverse City or anywhere in Northern Michigan, don’t wait to have the facts of your situation evaluated. Call Miller Embury PLLC at (888) 224-1239 or reach us through the contact form on this site to schedule your free consultation.