Understanding Florida State Statute 768.0706: Presumption Against Liability for Criminal Acts

In March 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 837 (“Civil Remedies”), a sweeping piece of tort reform legislation that among other changes, extends important protections for owners and operators of multifamily residential property. One of its most consequential provisions is a rebuttable presumption against liability when crimes are committed by third parties on the property, provided the owner has met certain security and training requirements.

What Is the Presumption Against Liability?

A presumption against liability is a legal doctrine that shifts the burden of proof: once a property owner presents evidence that they satisfied the specific security standards written into the statute, the law assumes they are not negligent — and the person bringing the lawsuit must then provide evidence to rebut, or disprove, that assumption. This is a powerful protection for owners, because failing to meet it does not automatically mean liability, but satisfying it gives you a strong legal starting point.

Under FSS 768.0706, this presumption applies in cases involving criminal acts (not intentional torts by the owner) by non-employees (i.e., third-party criminals) on multifamily residential properties. In other words: if someone is lawfully on the premises (tenant or guest) and is injured by a third-party criminal, the owner/operator may invoke this presumption — but only if they satisfy certain conditions.

Key Requirements Under FSS 768.0706

FSS 768.0706 lays out three broad categories of security-related obligations that a multifamily property owner must substantially implement in order to benefit from the presumption.

1. Physical Safety Measures

   • The statute lists specific security features that the property must have in place:

   • A security camera system covering entry and exit points, with records retained in retrievable form for at least 30 days.

   • Lighting: common areas, walkways, porches, laundry rooms, and parking lots must be lit from dusk until dawn. Parking lots need to be illuminated at an average level of 1.8 foot-candles as measured 18 inches above the ground.

   • At least 1-inch deadbolts on each unit door.

   • Locking devices on all windows, exterior sliding doors, and other doors not used for community purposes.

   • Locked gates for pool that is accessible via key or fob.

   • Peepholes or door viewers on unit doors that lack windows.

2. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Assessment

   • Owners must have performed a “crime prevention through environmental design” assessment (often referred to as a CPTED assessment) by January 1, 2025, and

   • The assessment must be no more than three years old when invoked.

   • The assessment must be conducted by a law enforcement agency or a practitioner certified by the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute.

   • The owner must then remain in substantial compliance with the recommendations of that assessment.

3. Crime Prevention Training for Employees

   • In addition to physical measures, FSS 768.0706 requires “proper crime deterrence and safety training” for property staff. The deadlines are:

     • By January 1, 2025: all current employees must be trained.

     • After January 1, 2025: any newly hired employee must complete training within 60 days and ongoing training must be refreshed at least every three years.

Burden of Proof

Importantly, the burden lies on the owner or principal operator to establish that these security measures and training have been substantially implemented. “Substantial implementation” is not precisely defined in the statute, so in practice, it may be disputed in court — a situation that could lead to litigation over what meets the standard.

Additional Changes Under FSS 768.0706

While the presumption against liability for negligent security is among the most publicly discussed elements of FSS 768.0706, it is only one piece of a larger package of reforms. Key additional provisions include:

• Comparative Fault: Florida shifts from a pure comparative negligence system to a modified one. Under the new rules, a plaintiff who is 50 percent or more at fault cannot recover damages in most negligence cases.

• Statute of Limitations: The general time limit for negligence claims is reduced from four years to two years.

Implications and Risks

For multifamily property owners, the presumption against liability offers strong incentive to proactively implement security infrastructure and training. By doing so, they not only reduce their risk in potential lawsuits, but also improve tenant safety.

Legal and riskmanagement analysts have pointed out, however, that the concept of “substantial implementation” is likely to be contested, and judges and juries may differ on what suffices.

Plaintiffs, in turn, face a tougher hill: they must now rebut the presumption — meaning they need to prove that the owner failed to meet one or more of the statutory requirements. This could make negligent security claims more expensive and challenging.

Some critics argue the reforms tilt the balance too far in favor of property owners and insurance interests. Proponents, however, contend that the changes were necessary to curb frivolous lawsuits and to encourage property owners to invest in meaningful crime-prevention infrastructure.

Conclusion

FSS 768.0706 represents a landmark shift in tort law. By establishing a presumption against liability for multifamily property owners who comply with a well-defined set of security and training measures, the law rewards preventive action. Owners willing to adopt comprehensive crime-prevention strategies may gain a powerful shield in court, but they must also shoulder the burden of proving they have done so — and “substantial implementation” will likely be tested in future litigation. As with many tort reforms, the long-term impact will depend heavily on how Florida courts interpret and enforce these new protections.