The Landscape of Liability is changing. How FSS 768.0706 is being applied in practice and how to stay ahead.

Discussed are a few applications of Florida State Statute 768.0706 and what this means for your bottom line.

Developed in 1971, the design principles of CPTED have undoubtedly stood the test of time. In light of the the law (effective January 1, 2025), we get to experience how the applied risk mitigation through total compliance may uphold your property's protection in the courtroom.

Early commentary and the “race to file”

When HB 837 was signed into law on March 24, 2023, there was a surge in lawsuits filed just before the effective date. Some firms reported that plaintiffs’ counsel filed many cases in anticipation of the law taking effect — arguably to avoid the new protections for defendants. The law took immediate effect, but many of its provisions apply only to causes of action accruing after the effective date.  

This "front-loading" of cases might indicate that plaintiffs viewed the law as more restrictive, prompting them to act quickly before the old rules were no longer in effect.

The presumption against liability in negligent‑security cases

One of the headline changes: under FSS 768.0706, the owner or principal operator of a multifamily residential property (five or more dwelling units on a parcel) who has “substantially implemented” specified security measures and training gets a rebuttable presumption that they are not negligent for a third‑party criminal act on the premises. Also, the law requires the fact‐finder (jury or judge) to consider the fault of all parties who contributed to the injury, including the third‑party criminal actor. Previously, in some negligent‑security contexts, attribution to the criminal actor may have been limited.

What that means in practice: A plaintiff suing for injuries from a criminal act on a multifamily property must not only show the owner/operator breached a duty, but also must overcome the presumption if the owner/operator meets the checklist (delivered with a CPTED report) and training requirements.

Evidence of “substantial implementation” and open questions

Although the law sets forth the checklist of required physical security measures and deadlines (e.g., by Jan 1, 2025 the CPTED style assessment; training deadlines) — there are still open questions in how courts will interpret what “substantial compliance” means. (The term appears in the statute but is not precisely defined.)

Because FSS 768.0706 is relatively recent and claims under it will take time to work their way through trial and appeals, there is limited published case law and interpretation for FSS 768.0706. Though most commentary at this stage is predictive or advisory, CPTED assessments and compliance reports offer guidance for the most strict interpretation of the law.

Impacts for plaintiffs and timing and limitations of protection

Timing - The statute of limitations for general negligence was shortened (from 4 years to 2 years) under the statute, so plaintiffs must be more diligent about timely filing.

Limitations - While the presumption protects owners/operators, the law is limited to “multifamily residential property.” So, if you are an owner or operator of a residential building or group of buildings such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums, consisting of at least 5 dwelling units on a particular parcel, this protection applies to you. Liability claims for other sectors, like commercial properties or retail may still proceed under the prior law (subject to other reforms in the statute).

Practical advice emerging

Owners/operators of multifamily residential property will need to secure strong documentation of compliance with the checklist, training records, CPTED assessment results, video/lighting/deadbolt installations, etc. because presumption must demonstrate substantial compliance.

• Note the advice for plaintiffs’ counsel or those injured on property may be to evaluate whether the property owner has indeed met the checklist and training, and whether the injury arises from a criminal act of a third party (not an employee or the owner). If so, they may prepare to argue that “substantial compliance” was not met and focus on evidence of breach or deficient security.

The following are implications of the policy in effect:

Shift of risk and incentivization

One clear policy goal of FSS 768.0706 is to incentivize property owners to adopt proactive crime‐prevention measures: lighting, cameras, deadbolts, locked gates, CPTED assessments, and employee training. If properties do so, the industry is gaining insight on just how effective this can legally be presented as a safety‑buffer (the presumption) and help to raise overall safety standards across multifamily housing.

Impact on insurance, litigation costs, and behavior

By reducing potential liability, the law may reduce insurance costs for property owners/operators (or at least control increases) and reduce the number of large negligent‐security verdicts or settlements. Reducing risk may lead to more investment in security infrastructure, or be used to justify not increasing premiums.

From the litigation side, the presumption may reduce the number of filings, encourage earlier settlements (if owners/operators believe they will have strong defense), or push plaintiffs to focus on other areas (for example, commercial rather than multifamily residential or employer liability rather than premises security).

Equity and access to justice concerns

From a broader social‐policy lens, critics worry that stronger protections for property owners could make it harder for victims of criminal acts on premises to get compensation. The added legal hurdle could be significant, particularly in multifamily housing where residents may already be vulnerable. There is also a question of how well smaller property owners (who may lack budgets for sophisticated security installations or ongoing training) will fare. If they cannot meet “substantial implementation,” they may lose out on the presumption — but the cost to comply might also be burdensome.

Your bottom line

In short, while there are not yet many published judicial decisions litigating every nuance of the presumption against liability, the legal landscape for FSS 768.0706 has changed. Property owners who remain in compliance have a stronger shield; plaintiffs face higher hurdles but can still proceed.

Over the next few years, we’ll likely see case law clarifying what “substantial compliance” means, how strictly the checklist and training requirements will be enforced, how juries treat attribution of fault to third‑party criminals, and how courts handle appeals in this new regime. Overall, the outlook is promising - the law gives balance to the incentivization of property security improvements with reduction of owner liability.