When Security Fails: The SoMa at Brickell Lawsuit and the Legal Duties of Property Owners in Florida
On May 20, 2025, a disturbing report emerged from Miami’s Brickell neighborhood: a 62-year-old woman, identified as Jane Doe in court filings, filed a civil lawsuit against multiple companies tied to the SoMa at Brickell apartment complex. The lawsuit stems from an alleged attempted rape that occurred on the property earlier this month. The plaintiff claims that due to repeated security lapses ranging from broken access systems to lax surveillance, her assailant was enabled to trespass onto the property, into her unit and assault her. She alleged that the property owners and management companies failed to protect her as required by law.
This case is unfortunately one of many to recently occur in the Brickell area, raising critical questions about negligent security and the duty of care property owners owe to tenants under Florida law.
The Legal Framework: Premises Liability and Negligent Security
Florida law imposes a duty on property owners and possessors to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, which includes protecting against foreseeable third-party criminal acts. This duty arises from both common law principles and, in certain cases, statutory obligations under Florida’s building and housing codes.
The legal doctrine of negligent security holds a property owner liable when a failure to provide adequate security leads to criminal acts that cause harm. Florida courts have consistently recognized this principle:
- Paterson v. Deeb, 472 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985): Tenant brought an action against her landlords for damages resulting from a sexual attack that took place on the leased premises based on a failure to provide adequate security. The Court held that landlords may be liable for third-party criminal attacks if they failed to provide adequate security measures where criminal conduct was foreseeable.
- Hall v. Billy Jack’s, Inc., 458 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1984): Patron brought an action against the bar/lounge owners after suffering injuries from a fight that began inside the bar/lounge, spilled outside of the bar’s property and then resulted in a second fight, that occurred entirely outside of the property. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that businesses could be held liable for third-party criminal acts where the risk was foreseeable, establishing that foreseeability is central to determining duty.
Allegations in the SoMa at Brickell Case
According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the property owners, management companies, and security contractors collectively failed in several key respects:
- Defective Security Infrastructure: The building allegedly had non-functioning access control systems, which allowed the assailant to enter without authorization.
- Inadequate Security Personnel: The plaintiff claims there was insufficient or untrained security staff, failing to deter or respond to the attack.
- Ignored Prior Warnings: The defendants were allegedly aware of earlier security breaches and reports of unauthorized individuals entering the building, yet took no corrective action.
If these claims are substantiated, they could establish foreseeability – a cornerstone of negligent security liability. As the court held in Lopez v. McDonald’s Corp., (193 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (M.D. Fla. 2002)), foreseeability may be proven through prior incidents, complaints, or other knowledge that criminal activity was likely.
Duty to Protect Tenants: Florida’s Legal Expectations
While property owners are not insurers of their tenant’s safety, they are expected to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. This includes:
- Keeping entry points secured and maintained;
- Employing trained security staff where appropriate; and
- Responding to prior criminal incidents or resident concerns.
Failure to do so may breach the duty of care under Section 768.0701, Florida Statutes, which governs premises liability for criminal acts by third parties and codifies aspects of foreseeability and causation.
Implications for Landlords and Tenants
This lawsuit could set a precedent for how courts interpret and apply the duty of care in high-density, luxury urban properties. For landlords and property managers, it serves as a strong reminder to:
- Routinely inspect and upgrade security infrastructure;
- Document and act upon resident complaints or safety concerns; and
- Establish clear protocols for preventing unauthorized access.
Tenants, on the other hand, should feel empowered to report security flaws and understand that the law may provide remedies if a property owner’s inaction results in harm.
The Jane Doe v. SoMa at Brickell case illustrates the real-life consequences of failing to take security seriously. Florida law is clear: when landlords and property owners neglect their duty to provide reasonably secure premises, they may be held legally and financially accountable. As urban crime trends evolve, so must the precautions and standards of those who profit from residential leasing.
If you’re a property owner, tenant, or legal professional seeking more insight into negligent security claims in Florida, feel free to contact our firm for a consultation.