Las Vegas is a city known for its vibrant nightlife, bustling hotels, and crowded entertainment venues. However, these high-traffic environments can also be the settings for violence, assault, theft, and other criminal acts. Whether inside a casino, in a hotel lobby, a parking garage, or an apartment complex, the failure of property owners to provide adequate security can have devastating consequences for victims.

When property owners neglect their duty to protect lawful visitors from foreseeable harm, victims have legal grounds to seek accountability and compensation. Understanding your rights and the complexities of negligent security claims in Nevada is critical—and that is where Drummond Law Firm steps in.

Why You Can Trust Drummond Law Firm With Your Case

Drummond Law Firm brings a unique blend of military discipline, principled advocacy, and trial experience to every personal injury case, including negligent security claims. Our firm’s leadership, guided by former U.S. Army Captain and Bronze Star Medal recipient Craig W. Drummond, shapes a culture of commitment and integrity.

Trial-Ready, Principled Advocacy

We do not settle for quick resolutions that undervalue your injury or loss. From the outset, we prepare every case with the intention of going to trial if necessary. This approach signals to opposing parties that we are serious about pursuing justice and not simply looking for easy settlements.

Personal Attention and Dignity

At Drummond Law Firm, you are more than a file number. We provide attorney-led representation where you will communicate directly with your lawyer. We understand the trauma victims experience after negligent security incidents and treat every client with the respect, compassion, and focused attention they deserve.

The Reduced Fee Guarantee®

Our firm is proud to offer Nevada’s only Reduced Fee Guarantee. This means that if your case settles before a lawsuit is filed, we will never take more from the settlement than you do. It is a promise grounded in fairness and transparency—principles that define our client relationships.

What Counts as Negligent Security Under Nevada Law?

Negligent security occurs when a property owner fails to take reasonable steps to protect visitors from foreseeable criminal acts. Under Nevada law, property owners have a legal duty to provide a safe environment, especially in areas where the risk of crime is known or should be known.

Legal Duty to Protect Lawful Visitors

This duty includes implementing security measures that a reasonable property owner would take under similar circumstances. Such measures may include hiring trained security personnel, maintaining adequate lighting in parking lots and walkways, locking gates or doors, and monitoring premises with functional surveillance cameras.

When property owners fail to act on prior warnings, ignore patterns of crime, or neglect basic safety infrastructure, they breach this duty and become liable for resulting injuries or losses.

Foreseeability and Reasonableness

The cornerstone of negligent security claims is foreseeability. Property owners are only responsible for criminal acts that could reasonably be anticipated based on past incidents or known risks. Courts evaluate whether the owner’s security measures were proportionate to the threat and whether reasonable precautions were taken.

Our attorneys carefully analyze crime reports, prior complaints, and security policies to demonstrate how the owner’s negligence directly contributed to the harm suffered.

Common Locations Where Negligent Security Happens

Negligent security claims arise in a variety of Las Vegas settings where large numbers of people gather or pass through regularly.

Hotels and Casinos

These venues attract millions of visitors annually and often house late-night bars, gaming floors, and entertainment areas. When security is understaffed, lighting is poor, or surveillance is insufficient, guests become vulnerable to assault, theft, or other criminal acts.

Nightclubs and Entertainment Venues

Crowded nightclubs, concert halls, and bars can become hotspots for violence without proper crowd control, trained security, and emergency response protocols. Negligent security claims frequently involve these environments where alcohol, large crowds, and limited supervision increase risk.

Apartment Complexes and Gated Communities

Residents have a right to feel safe in their homes. Property managers and homeowners’ associations must maintain secure entrances, proper lighting, and active security patrols. Failure to do so can expose residents to break-ins, assaults, or vandalism.

Parking Lots and Garages

Poorly lit parking areas are frequent locations of violent crime. Without adequate lighting, patrols, and surveillance, visitors risk being attacked or robbed. Negligent security claims often focus on these overlooked but dangerous zones.

Shopping Centers and Convenience Stores

Retail spaces face similar security challenges, especially after hours. When owners fail to implement sufficient security personnel, alarms, or camera systems, customers and employees may be harmed.

Examples of Security Failures That Lead to Harm

Understanding common lapses in security helps clarify what constitutes negligence under Nevada law. These failures often form the basis for strong legal claims.

Broken Locks or Unsecured Entrances

Doors or gates that are left unlocked, broken, or easy to bypass invite unauthorized access. This failure enables criminals to enter private or restricted areas, increasing the risk of assault or theft.

Poor Lighting in Hallways or Parking Lots

Dark areas create opportunities for crime and prevent victims from identifying assailants or escaping danger. Adequate lighting is a basic security measure that property owners must maintain consistently.

Lack of Security Personnel or Untrained Guards

Having no security presence—or guards who lack proper training in de-escalation and emergency response—can result in delayed intervention during violent incidents. This negligence puts visitors at unnecessary risk.

Ignoring Prior Incidents of Violence or Crime in the Area

When property owners fail to respond to previous criminal activity reports, warnings, or police recommendations, they show a disregard for guest safety. Repeated incidents often strengthen the foreseeability element required in negligent security claims.

Non-Functioning Surveillance Systems

Cameras that are broken, poorly positioned, or not actively monitored reduce the ability to deter crime or identify perpetrators. This failure undermines the property’s security efforts and exposes visitors to harm.

The Impact of Negligent Security on Victims and Communities

Negligent security incidents do not only affect individuals directly harmed—they have ripple effects that impact families, communities, and businesses alike. Understanding these broader consequences underscores the importance of holding property owners and security providers accountable.

Physical and Emotional Trauma for Victims

The immediate aftermath of assaults, robberies, or violent crimes on poorly secured properties often leaves victims with serious physical injuries. These can range from fractures and concussions to life-altering trauma requiring long-term medical care.

Beyond physical harm, victims frequently suffer psychological effects such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a pervasive fear for personal safety. The emotional scars can persist long after visible injuries heal, disrupting work, relationships, and quality of life.

Financial Burdens and Lost Opportunities

Medical bills, therapy costs, lost wages, and other expenses can quickly accumulate after a negligent security incident. Many victims find themselves overwhelmed by financial strain, especially when the injuries impact their ability to work or care for their families.

Legal claims seek to alleviate these burdens by holding responsible parties financially accountable, but no amount of money can fully compensate for the disruption and hardship caused.

Community Trust and Economic Impact

When a property is known for frequent crime or security lapses, community trust erodes. Residents, customers, and visitors may avoid these areas, impacting local businesses and property values. This decline can create a cycle of neglect and disinvestment, further exacerbating safety concerns.

Strong legal enforcement of negligent security standards incentivizes property owners to maintain safer environments, contributing to healthier, more vibrant communities.

Why Early Legal Action Matters

Taking swift legal action after a negligent security incident is critical—not only to protect your rights but also to preserve evidence essential to your case. Surveillance footage, witness memories, and maintenance records degrade or disappear with time. Early intervention also helps prevent other victims from being harmed by holding negligent parties accountable.

At Drummond Law Firm, we understand the urgency of these cases and move quickly to secure the facts and build a strong claim on your behalf.

Our Commitment to Your Safety and Justice

Our firm’s mission extends beyond winning cases; it is about restoring safety, dignity, and justice to those affected by negligent security. We work tirelessly to expose failures in security protocols and fight for reforms that protect future visitors.

If you or a loved one has been harmed due to inadequate security measures in Las Vegas, you deserve legal representation that combines expertise, compassion, and relentless advocacy.

Who Can Be Held Liable in a Negligent Security Case?

In negligent security cases, legal responsibility often extends beyond a single individual or entity. Liability may be shared among several parties, each of whom has a duty to protect visitors from foreseeable harm. Understanding who can be held accountable is critical for pursuing a successful claim.

Property Owners or Management Companies

The primary responsibility typically rests with property owners or management companies. They are charged with ensuring that the premises are reasonably safe, which includes implementing effective security measures such as hiring trained personnel, maintaining lighting and surveillance systems, and addressing known risks. Failure to uphold these duties can constitute negligence, making them liable for injuries resulting from criminal acts.

Security Contractors or Staffing Firms

Many property owners hire third-party security companies to provide patrols, surveillance, and emergency response. These contractors are expected to follow professional standards and contractual obligations to maintain safety. If security personnel are inadequately trained, absent, or negligent in their duties, both the contractor and the hiring party may be held responsible for resulting harm.

Event Organizers or Promoters

In settings such as concerts, festivals, or large-scale gatherings, event organizers and promoters bear responsibility for managing security risks. This includes arranging sufficient security staff, controlling crowd flow, and enforcing safety policies. When they fail to plan properly or respond to incidents, they can be liable for injuries or assaults occurring on-site.

Businesses That Failed to Respond to Known Threats or Incidents

Liability also extends to businesses that are aware of prior criminal activity or security threats but fail to take reasonable action. Ignoring warnings, neglecting to repair security flaws, or dismissing staff concerns about safety demonstrates negligence. Our firm carefully investigates these histories to establish foreseeability and breach of duty in your case.

How Drummond Law Firm Proves Negligent Security

Proving negligent security requires a thorough, evidence-based approach. At Drummond Law Firm, we combine detailed investigation with expert analysis to build compelling cases for our clients.

Investigating the History of Criminal Activity on or Near the Property

We conduct comprehensive research into past incidents, police reports, and crime statistics related to the property and its surroundings. Patterns of violence or repeated crimes establish the foreseeability that reasonable security measures could have prevented further harm.

Reviewing Policies, Procedures, and Staff Records

Our team obtains and analyzes security policies, staffing schedules, training records, and incident logs to assess whether the property’s security protocols met industry standards. Gaps, inconsistencies, or violations in these documents provide evidence of negligence.

Obtaining Surveillance Footage and Lighting Schematics

Visual evidence is key. We work promptly to secure surveillance videos that capture the incident or demonstrate security lapses. Additionally, lighting schematics and maintenance records help us prove inadequate illumination, a known risk factor for crime.

Working With Security and Safety Experts to Show What Should Have Been Done

We engage experienced security consultants and safety experts to review the property’s conditions and security measures. Their professional opinions help demonstrate what reasonable precautions should have been implemented and how their absence contributed to the injury. These experts often testify in court or negotiations to reinforce the strength of our claims.

Negligent Security Case Example: Humphries Case

In April 2010, Humphries and Rocha, were attacked by another patron on the New York–New York’s casino floor. Security officers and police stopped the altercation and eventually detained the attacker. He was arrested and subsequently convicted of one count of attempted battery with substantial bodily harm.

Before trial, the Judge dismissed the case based on Humphries and Rocha not suing the attacker personally. Obviously, the attacker was a loser who did not have any financial resources to compensate the victims for their medical bills and injuries. Drummond Law Firm appealed the decision and the first appellate win was in Humphries v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 85 (Nov. 7, 2013). In that published decision, the Court held that plaintiffs have the right to decide whom to sue, and that the district court erred by requiring that the victims also sue the attacker along with New York-New York. The Nevada Supreme Court held:

Policy considerations also militate against a per se rule requiring a plaintiff to join co-tortfeasors to an action as necessary parties. For example, if a plaintiff is unable to join a tortfeasor because the tortfeasor is unknown, immune from liability, or outside the court’s jurisdiction, dismissal for failure to join the tortfeasor as a necessary and indispensable party would prevent a plaintiff from recovering any damages and force a plaintiff to bear the entire burden of the damages, regardless of the original defendant’s availability or fault.

The Supreme Court of Nevada sent the case back to the trial court. Unfortunately, New York-New York and MGM’s teams of attorneys tried again to have the case dismissed arguing that the attack was not “foreseeable” meaning they had no warning that the attack would occur. The trial judge again dismissed the case and again Drummond Law Firm appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

The second appellate win was in Humphries v. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, 403 P.3d 358 (Oct. 5, 2017). Nevada’s highest court noted that:

A NYNY security guard responded and immediately reported the altercation over his radio. The security guard then watched the attack for 12 to 15 seconds until backup arrived before intervening to break up the incident. The attack lasted a total of 17 seconds. As a result of the attack, Humphries suffered a skull fracture and some other minor injuries. Rocha received injuries to his face and head.

The Supreme Court of Nevada specifically found that the attack on Humphries and Rocha were foreseeable. The Court held that the appropriate considerations are the location of the incident, the level of violence used, the security concerns implicated by the action, and prior incidents of similar wrongful acts that occurred on the premises.

The two Humphries decisions stand for the positions that 1) you do not have to sue the attacker if the property owner also had negligent security; and 2) the test of foreseeability/notice is not just looking at whether there had been the exact type of incident before.

These Humphries decisions were hard fought victories by Drummond Law Firm and increased the rights of crime victims in Nevada whether they were injured by an attack, or because security or bouncers did not do their job in keeping the property in a reasonably safe condition.

If you have been harmed due to negligent security, you should not wait to seek justice. Pursuing legal action is not only about compensation for your injuries—it is about holding those responsible accountable to prevent similar tragedies from happening to others.

Drummond Law Firm is ready to stand with you, providing focused, principled legal guidance rooted in discipline and determination. We offer free consultations and will never charge fees unless we win your case.