What Does "Substantially Similar" Mean?

Substantial similarity doesn’t mean the previous crimes must be identical to the one in question. Instead, it’s about whether the prior incidents should have alerted a reasonably prudent property owner to the risks. For instance, in Reid v. Augusta-Richmond County Coliseum Auth. and other cases, Georgia courts have emphasized that patterns of criminal activity—such as burglaries or robberies—can create a known dangerous condition, even if the ultimate crime was more severe, like a sexual assault.

In Matt v. Days Inns of America, the court clarified that it’s not necessary for prior crimes to involve the same specific outcome, such as violence. What matters is whether the property owner should have reasonably anticipated the increased risks to tenants or visitors based on the pattern of past incidents.

Why This Matters

For landlords and property owners, a documented history of criminal incidents—like burglaries, thefts, or violent attacks—can establish a duty to take preventive measures, such as improving lighting, securing gates, or hiring security personnel. Failing to act after being made aware of such risks can make them liable for harm to tenants or visitors under Georgia’s premises liability laws.

For example:

• In Days Inns of America v. Matt, even a single prior robbery was sufficient to create a legal question about the property owner’s duty to protect patrons.

• Similarly, in Walker v. Sturbridge Partners, evidence of three prior burglaries was enough to show that the landlord might have been on notice about the risks to tenants. The court rejected the argument that crimes against property (like thefts) couldn’t signal the potential for more serious crimes like assaults.

The Role of Evidence

Strong evidence is crucial to proving a property owner’s liability. This includes:

1. Police Reports: Records of prior crimes on or near the premises.

2. Incident Logs: Internal reports documenting complaints or safety concerns.

3. Witness Testimony: Statements from tenants or employees about unsafe conditions or previous criminal behavior.

4. Expert Testimony: Security experts can explain how the owner’s actions—or lack thereof—contributed to unsafe conditions.

What Doesn’t Qualify

Not all behaviors or incidents are enough to establish foreseeability. For instance:

• Cat-calling or Boorish Behavior: While unpleasant, these actions don’t necessarily indicate an immediate risk of violent crime. As the court in Walker v. Sturbridge Partners noted, such behavior doesn’t create a legal duty for the landlord to act unless it signals a likelihood of criminal escalation.

• For example, in Savannah College of Art & Design v. Roe, evidence of unrelated incidents, like petty thefts or "peeping toms," was deemed insufficient to establish foreseeability for a sexual assault. This underscores the importance of focusing on incidents that directly signal a heightened risk of similar criminal acts.

How This Affects Victims

If you’re a victim of a crime that occurred due to a property owner’s negligence, understanding these legal principles is critical. With the help of an experienced attorney, you can gather the evidence needed to show that the property owner was aware of the risks and failed to take reasonable precautions. This can include examining crime patterns, safety measures, and whether the owner had reasonable grounds to foresee the risk and address it.

Georgia courts have made it clear: landlords, property managers, and property owners can’t ignore warning signs. Holding them accountable ensures that victims have access to justice and can seek compensation for the harm they’ve endured