Premises liability lawsuits stemming from negligent security arise when a property owner's failure to maintain safe conditions results in a guest getting hurt. Injured guests in Kent, Washington, have the right to demand financial compensation from property owners who neglect their duty to keep visitors safe. Herschensohn Law, PLLC has served injury victims in Washington for more than 20 years, recovering, for example, an $800,000 settlement for an Ellensburg fall victim. Guests hurt on unsafe property can call Herschensohn Law, PLLC at (206) 588-4344 to speak to a Kent premises liability lawyer.
Summary of Premises Liability and Negligent Security Law in Kent, Washington
In 2026, premises liability law as it relates to negligent security in Washington is a niche legal area in which property owners are accountable for unsafe conditions like inadequate security that ultimately harms visitors.
- Washington courts classify visitors as invitees, licensees, or trespassers. Each classification of visitors has a responsibility to maintain safe conditions (i.e., a “duty of care”) recognized in Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society, 124 Wn.2d 121 (1994).
- Guests generally have three years from the date of their injury to file a premises liability lawsuit under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 4.16.080.
- Businesses can be held liable for negligent security, such as inadequate staffing, poor lighting, or insufficient surveillance, when foreseeable criminal acts occur.
Herschensohn Law, PLLC represents injured guests in Kent, Seattle, and Chehalis in premises liability matters born from negligent security.
Premises Liability: The Basics
Premises liability, or having a property that is unsafe to guests, refers to the legal responsibility landowners and tenants have to fix dangerous conditions on their premises that are likely to harm visitors. Washington law does not rely on just one statute to define premises liability, instead drawing from case law and the Restatement (Second) of Torts. In other words, property owners in and around Kent possess varying duties depending on why a person entered the property. Furthermore, the Washington Supreme Court addressed these various duties in Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society, 124 Wn.2d 121 (1994), a foundational premises liability decision.
Washington courts generally recognize three categories of entrants, and each category determines the scope of a property owner's duty to that person. These classifications include:
- Invitees, such as customers at a Kent retail store, are legally entitled to the highest standard of care, including regular inspection for hazards.
- Licensees, such as social guests, have the right to be warned of known dangers that are not obvious.
- Trespassers, such as burglars, have a right not to be hurt on purpose or maliciously while trespassing. Exceptions exist for children drawn to what’s called an “attractive nuisance,” which means an alluring property feature that can tempt and ultimately cause children harm, such as an unfenced, uncovered pool.
Moreover, common hazards that often lead to premises liability lawsuits include wet floors, broken stairs, uneven pavement, and inadequate lighting. For example, a restaurant guest who slips on a wet floor without a warning sign most likely has grounds for a lawsuit. Washington courts also examine whether the property owner had “actual” or “constructive” notice of the hazard before the injury occurred. Actual notice means the property owner directly knew about the hazard, such as having seen it personally, whereas constructive notice means the hazard existed long enough that the owner should have known about. Without the owner having knowledge of the property hazard, it can be difficult for an injured guest to prove negligence occurred.
When Is a Property Owner Liable for an Injury on Their Premises?
A property owner becomes liable for an injury when it is caused by their own negligence rather than mere chance. Washington law requires an injured guest to prove four elements to meet this standard:
- Duty: the property owner had a responsibility to keep the property safe.
- Breach: the owner failed to meet that responsibility.
- Causation: that failure is what caused the injury.
- Damages: the extent of harm caused.
Regardless of the severity of the injury, failure to prove any one element defeats a premises liability lawsuit. Kent property owners, including property managers, retail stores, homeowners, and event venues, must inspect their premises regularly and correct potential threats reasonably quickly.
Foreseeability plays a central role in determining liability. Property owners are expected to anticipate hazards that a reasonable inspection would reveal, such as a loose stairway handrail. Likewise, bars and nightclubs must employ enough properly trained and equipped security staff. Courts also examine whether the property owner had sufficient time to correct the dangerous element before the injury occurred. For example, a spill left unattended for hours differs significantly from one that occurred moments before a guest fell.
When Poor Security Leads to an Assault
In King County, commercial venues, including bars, nightclubs, hotels, and event venues, have a responsibility to protect invitees from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct. While a business does not have an absolute duty to hire security guards per se, it must take reasonable and appropriate actions. This could mean trying to separate hostile patrons or calling the police as needed when an on-site conflict escalates. If a specific threat in the business becomes imminent, as established in Wilbert v. Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma, 106 Wn. App. 430 (2001), businesses are expected to intervene. Furthermore, pursuant to the voluntary undertaking doctrine reinforced in Fontaine v. Green River Homes, LLC, 104 Wn. App. 1007 (2001), if a venue chooses to employ a security team, it assumes a legal obligation to offer that service with care. In other words, relying on an understaffed security team or poorly-trained bouncers constitutes actionable negligence.
Additionally, establishing foreseeability often requires evidence of prior violent incidents at the location in question or in the immediate vicinity. A bar or nightclub serving alcohol should expect to have an appropriate amount of security staff on the floor at all times. Property owners cannot escape liability because a member of the public (versus an employee under their direct control), for instance, committed an assault on their premises. The relevant question is whether more or better security staffing could have prevented the foreseeable harm.
What Should Guests Do If Injured on Someone's Property?
Even when injuries initially seem minor, guests injured on someone else’s property should see a doctor immediately. Local medical facilities will document injuries that will likely become relevant later if filing a premises liability lawsuit is necessary. Prompt medical treatment not only allows for proper healing and recovery, but it creates a paper trail connecting the injury to the incident. Waiting to be seen by a doctor, to fill prescriptions, or to get recommended surgeries, medical devices, or other care gives insurance companies grounds to dispute the injury.
Furthermore, guests should also report the incident to the property owner and, if applicable, the Kent Police Department. Photos and videos of the hazard, witness information, and any other relevant evidence will help injured guests win insurance claims and, if necessary, lawsuits. Additionally, guests should avoid giving recorded statements to insurance adjusters before getting a full understanding of their case from a Kent premises liability attorney. Understand that insurance companies routinely use premature recorded statements out of context to minimize or deny payouts.
Can a Business Be Held Liable for a Crime Committed by a Third Party?
Yes, Washington permits a business to be sued when someone was injured by a preventable harm that was within their control to foresee and neutralize. Washington courts examine whether the business knew or should have known about the risk and failed to act. A pattern of criminal activity at a Kent shopping center, for instance, is enough for the property owner to know better lighting, a surveillance system, or night-time security guards are needed to maintain safety.
Additionally, businesses often argue that crime is random and not really their fault, even if their security was lacking. Washington courts reject that argument when common sense dictates similar harms happen often at their type of establishment, such as a bar when a fight breaks out. It's not foreseeable when there's no prior pattern of incidents and similar businesses also do not experience such occurrences. For example, a pet store would be highly unlikely to be held liable for not having a security guard if an assault occurred on their property. Ultimately, a business that ignored repeated indicators that their security was inadequate and did not implement reasonable corrections can incur significant liability.
Call a Kent Premises Liability Lawyer for Help!
Our founding attorney Zach Herschensohn has litigated Washington premises liability cases since 2003. He has also been involved in important appeals cases such as Gibson v. American Construction Company, Inc. With offices in Kent, Seattle, Chehalis, Ellensburg, and Graham, Herschensohn Law, PLLC has secured settlements of up to $5,000,000 for injured Washingtonians. Call Herschensohn Law, PLLC at (206) 588-4344 to set up a free consultation with a skilled, hardworking Kent premises liability attorney now.
FAQs About Premises Liability and Negligent Security in Kent, Washington
The following FAQs address common legal questions related to premises liability and negligent security lawsuits in Washington.
What Counts as Negligent Security Under Washington Premises Liability Law?
Again, negligent security is where a business or property owner failed to provide adequate safety measures, like enough trained bouncers or a monitored entrance. A preventable assault on the property due to inadequate security is not legally different from the harm posed by a slippery spill or uneven flooring—it was a foreseeably preventable hazard.
How Long Do Washington Residents Have to File a Premises Liability Lawsuit?
Washington law generally requires an injured guest to file a premises liability lawsuit within three years of the injury according to RCW 4.16.080. Certain exceptions can extend this deadline depending on a variety of factors.
Can Someone Demand Compensation if They Were Partially at Fault?
In Washington, an injured guest can still get a pay-out even if they were somewhat to blame for what happened. Under RCW 4.22.005, their settlement gets reduced by whatever percentage they were at fault. For example, someone found to be 30% at fault, for example, would receive just 70% of the total amount awarded.
Do Washington Bouncers Need to Be Licensed Security Guards?
Yes, Washington law requires most bouncers and security staff to hold a valid security guard license under RCW 18.170. A venue that staffs unlicensed or untrained bouncers is breaking the law and therefore negligent.
How Can Herschensohn Law, PLLC Help With a Negligent Security or Premises Liability Case?
Yes, Herschensohn Law, PLLC helps injured guests in Kent, Seattle, Chehalis, and surrounding areas. Our firm's attorneys review property conditions, security measures, and prior incident history to evaluate potential legal options. Please consider visiting with an experienced Washington attorney at Herschensohn Law, PLLC to learn your legal options.
