Florida gives the owner or principal operator of a multifamily residential property a presumption against liability in connection with criminal acts committed on the premises by third parties who are not employees or agents, provided the property substantially implements a defined set of security measures. The provision is Section 768.0706, Florida Statutes, enacted in 2023.
It is one of the few places in Florida premises law where a property owner can improve its litigation position through decisions made before anything happens. It is also frequently misunderstood in both directions. Some operators believe cameras and lighting alone will do it, and others assume the requirements are impractical without having read them.
Which properties qualify
The statute defines multifamily residential property as a residential building, or group of residential buildings, such as apartments, townhouses, or condominiums, consisting of at least five dwelling units on a particular parcel, with parcel defined by reference to the identification number assigned by the county property appraiser. The presumption runs to the owner or principal operator. Whether a particular ownership or management structure occupies that position, and whether a given community sits on one parcel or several, are questions worth answering specifically rather than by assumption.
The security measures
The statute enumerates the measures rather than describing a standard of reasonableness, which is unusual and useful. They include a security camera system at points of entry and exit that records and maintains footage retrievable for at least thirty days to assist in offender identification; parking lot lighting illuminated at an average intensity of at least 1.8 foot-candles per square foot measured at eighteen inches above the surface, from dusk until dawn or on a photocell or similar control; lighting in walkways, laundry rooms, common areas, and porches on the same dusk to dawn basis; and door hardware requirements including a peephole or door viewer on each dwelling unit door that does not have a window or a window next to it.
The statute also requires a crime prevention through environmental design assessment and employee training. The assessment must have been completed by January 1, 2025, must be no more than three years old, and must be performed by a law enforcement agency or a practitioner designated by the Florida Crime Prevention Training Institute, with the owner remaining in substantial compliance with it. On training, owners or principal operators were to have provided crime deterrence and safety training to current employees by January 1, 2025, and after that date must provide it to a new employee within sixty days of hire.
Substantially implements, and who has to prove it
Two features of the statute deserve emphasis because they determine whether the presumption is available in practice. The operative word is substantially implements, not perfectly implements, which leaves room for argument about a property that satisfies most of the measures. And the statute places the burden of proof on the owner or principal operator to demonstrate substantial implementation.
That allocation is what turns this from a legal question into a records question. An owner who installed compliant lighting but cannot show the foot-candle measurement, or who runs cameras but overwrites at seven days, or who conducted training without documenting who attended and when, is going to have difficulty carrying a burden it did not know it had.
What the statute does not do
It creates a presumption against liability, not immunity, and the presumption is subject to being addressed at trial like other presumptions. It applies to criminal acts by third parties who are not employees or agents of the owner or operator, which leaves claims arising from employee conduct outside its scope. And the statute expressly provides that it does not establish a private cause of action, so a resident cannot sue for failure to implement the measures.
The practical takeaway
For an owner or operator, the useful exercise is an audit against the enumerated items, with attention to documentation rather than only to installation. That means the retention settings on the camera system, a lighting measurement record, the assessment itself, and dated training records with a review schedule. For a carrier underwriting or defending these properties, the same list is a reasonable diligence checklist, and the answer materially affects how a negligent security claim against that property will be defended.
This article is general information, not legal advice. The statute is recent, its terms are still being construed, and whether a particular property qualifies depends on facts specific to that property.