At a Glance: Parking Lot Attacks and Your Legal Rights in Missouri

✓ Parking lots are Missouri’s #1 most dangerous commercial property type, with 965 violent crimes in 2025
✓ Over five years (2020-2024), Missouri parking lots recorded 7,029 violent crimes, including 222 homicides
✓ Missouri’s Business Premises Safety Act (§ 537.787) governs liability for criminal acts on business premises
✓ Property owners must provide reasonable security when crime is foreseeable on their premises
✓ Common security failures include inadequate lighting, broken cameras, no patrols, and poor access controls
✓ You can sue the property owner even if the attacker is never identified or convicted
✓ Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations applies to personal injury claims (§ 516.120(4))
✓ Missouri’s pure comparative fault rule means you can recover damages even if you were partially at fault

Why Parking Lots Are Missouri’s Most Dangerous Commercial Properties

The numbers tell a story that property owners cannot ignore. According to FBI crime data analyzed by CrimeVictimJustice.com, Missouri parking lots and garages recorded 965 violent crime incidents in 2025. That breaks down to:

• 728 aggravated assaults
• 171 robberies
• 47 rapes
• 19 homicides

That single-year total means parking facilities accounted for 26% of all violence at Missouri commercial properties. One out of every four violent crimes that occurred at a business happened in a parking lot or garage. No other commercial property type comes close.

The long-term picture is even more striking. Over five years (2020-2024), CrimeVictimJustice.com’s property security analysis documented 7,029 violent crimes at Missouri parking facilities, averaging more than 1,400 per year. That five-year total includes 4,868 aggravated assaults, 1,589 robberies, 350 rapes, and 222 homicides.

Why are parking lots so dangerous? Several factors create a perfect storm for criminal activity. Parking lots are transition spaces where people are distracted, reaching for keys, loading groceries, or looking at their phones. They often have poor sightlines, with vehicles and structural columns creating blind spots and hiding places. Many parking lots have minimal lighting, especially at night, and few have active security patrols. Criminals know this, and the data proves it.

This volume of crime is exactly the type of evidence used to establish that a property owner “knew or had reason to know” that violence was reasonably likely. When nearly 1,000 violent crimes occur at Missouri parking lots in a single year, property owners cannot credibly claim that an attack on their premises was unforeseeable.

What Security Measures Should Parking Lot Owners Provide?

Missouri law does not prescribe a specific checklist of required security measures for every parking lot. Instead, the standard is what a “reasonable business owner in such industry” would implement based on the conditions of the property and the cost of those measures (§ 537.785). 

In practice, the security measures a parking lot owner should provide depend on the property’s crime history, its location, and the nature of the businesses it serves. That said, security professionals and courts regularly evaluate the following measures when assessing whether a parking lot owner met its duty of care:

Adequate lighting

This is the most basic and cost-effective security measure available. Parking lots should maintain sufficient lighting throughout the facility, with higher levels in stairwells, elevators, and pedestrian walkways. Dark areas provide cover for criminals and signal to potential attackers that the property owner is not invested in safety. Burned-out bulbs and broken fixtures that go unrepaired for days or weeks are among the most common findings in negligent security cases.

Functional surveillance cameras

Security cameras serve two purposes: they deter crime when visible, and they provide evidence when a crime does occur. A camera system that is broken, has blind spots, or overwrites footage before it can be reviewed after an incident offers little real protection. Property owners who install cameras but fail to maintain or monitor them may actually be in a worse position than those who never installed cameras at all, because the non-functional system suggests they recognized the risk but chose not to address it meaningfully.

Security patrols

Parking lots attached to high-traffic businesses, hospitals, shopping centers, and entertainment venues may need regular security patrols, particularly during evening and overnight hours. The frequency and staffing level should correspond to the property’s risk profile. A large parking garage in an area with a documented history of crime requires more than a single guard who walks through once per shift.

Emergency call boxes or panic stations

Larger facilities, especially multi-level garages, should provide a way for people in distress to summon help quickly. Emergency call boxes with direct connections to security or law enforcement give people a lifeline when they are in danger.

Access control

Gated parking structures should have functioning gates, card readers, and measures to prevent tailgating (unauthorized vehicles following authorized ones through a gate). When gates are broken and left open for weeks, access control becomes meaningless.

Clear sightlines

Property owners should maintain visibility throughout the lot by trimming landscaping, removing visual obstructions, and designing layouts that minimize isolated areas where attackers can hide.

Who Can Be Held Liable for a Parking Lot Attack?

Determining who is responsible for a parking lot attack depends on who owns, operates, and controls the property. In many cases, more than one party may share liability.

The Property Owner

The person or entity that owns the land and the parking structure has the primary duty of care. They are responsible for the physical infrastructure of the lot: lighting, fencing, cameras, and structural safety. If the parking lot is part of a larger commercial property like a shopping center or office complex, the property owner’s duty extends to the common areas used by tenants and their customers.

The Business That Controls the Lot

A retail store, hospital, or restaurant may not own the parking lot but may control how it is used. If a business invites customers onto the premises and the parking lot is part of that invitation, the business may bear responsibility for the security conditions customers encounter. A grocery store whose customers are regularly victimized in the store’s parking lot cannot disclaim responsibility simply because it leases rather than owns the lot.

The Property Management Company

When a management company handles day-to-day operations, including maintenance and security decisions, it may share liability for security failures. If the management company was responsible for hiring security guards, maintaining cameras, or repairing lighting and failed to do so, it can be named as a defendant.

The Security Company

If a security company was contracted to provide guards or monitoring services and those services were inadequate, the security company itself may face liability. Guards who were sleeping, absent from their posts, distracted, or untrained to respond to threats represent a failure on the part of the company that employed them.

An experienced negligent security attorney can investigate the ownership and management structure of the property to identify every potentially liable party.

Missouri Law and Parking Lot Negligent Security Claims

Missouri’s Business Premises Safety Act (§ 537.787) is the primary statute governing when a business can be held liable for criminal acts on its premises. Under the Act, a business has no duty to guard against crime unless it “knows or has reason to know that such acts are being committed or are reasonably likely to be committed in a particular area of the premises” and sufficient time exists to prevent the crime.

The critical question in every parking lot negligent security case is foreseeability: did the property owner have reason to know that a violent crime could occur? 

Evidence of foreseeability includes:

• Prior criminal incidents at the parking lot or on the broader property
• Crime reports in the surrounding area or neighborhood
• The nature of the business the parking lot serves (late-night operations, bars, cash-heavy businesses)
• Complaints from customers or employees about safety concerns, poor lighting, or suspicious activity
• Widely available crime data shows that parking facilities are a known high-risk environment for violent crime

Given that parking lots are the #1 most dangerous commercial property type in Missouri, with nearly 1,000 violent crimes per year, property owners who operate parking facilities in areas with any documented crime history face a steep challenge in arguing that violence was not foreseeable.

The Act also provides two affirmative defenses: the business implemented reasonable security measures, or the victim was trespassing or committing a felony at the time of the incident. If the property owner did invest in real security measures and maintained them properly, that defense carries weight. If the owner did nothing, or installed security systems and then let them deteriorate, the defense is much harder to sustain.

Missouri follows a pure comparative fault rule, which means you can recover damages even if you were partially at fault for what happened. If a jury determines you bear some responsibility (for example, you ignored posted warnings or entered a clearly unsafe area), your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are not barred from recovery entirely. Insurance companies and property owners routinely try to shift blame to the victim, which is one reason having experienced legal representation matters in these cases.

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Missouri is five years from the date of the injury (§ 516.120(4)). If the attack resulted in a death, the wrongful death statute of limitations is three years from the date of death (§ 537.080). While five years may sound like plenty of time, evidence disappears quickly. Surveillance footage is overwritten, witnesses move away, and property owners may upgrade their security after an incident, making it harder to prove what conditions were like at the time of the attack.

What Compensation Can You Recover?

Victims of parking lot attacks who bring successful negligent security claims can recover compensation for both the financial and personal impact of the crime. Missouri does not cap non-economic damages in negligent security cases (unlike medical malpractice, which has statutory limits).

Economic damages cover the quantifiable costs of the attack: emergency room bills, hospitalization, surgery, prescription medications, physical therapy, counseling, lost wages during recovery, and any reduction in your future earning capacity if the injuries affect your ability to work long-term.

Non-economic damages address the personal toll: pain and suffering, emotional distress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression, loss of enjoyment of life, and disfigurement or permanent physical impairment. Violent attacks, particularly armed robberies and sexual assaults, frequently cause lasting psychological harm that can be as debilitating as the physical injuries.

Wrongful death damages are available when a parking lot attack results in death. Surviving family members can seek compensation for funeral and burial expenses, loss of financial support, loss of companionship and guidance, and the pain and suffering the victim experienced before death.

Property damage may also be recoverable if your personal belongings were stolen or destroyed during a robbery.

Q&A: Common Questions About Parking Lot Attacks in Missouri

Who is responsible if I am attacked in a parking lot?

The property owner, business operator, management company, or contracted security firm may all bear responsibility depending on who controlled the property and its security measures. An investigation into the ownership structure and security arrangements is typically the first step in determining liability.

Can I sue a store for an attack that happened in their parking lot?

Yes, if the store controls the parking lot and fails to provide adequate security despite knowing or having reason to know that crime was foreseeable. The parking lot is an extension of the business premises, and the duty of care extends to areas that customers must use to access the business.

What if the person who attacked me was never caught?

You can still pursue a civil claim against the property owner. A negligent security case is about the property owner’s failure to provide adequate security, not the identity of the attacker. The criminal case and the civil case are separate legal proceedings.

Does the parking lot need to have had previous crimes for me to have a case?

Prior incidents are strong evidence of foreseeability, but they are not the only evidence. Crime data for the surrounding area, the nature of the business, the time of day, and the general security conditions of the property can all support a foreseeability argument. However, a documented history of prior crimes on the property makes the case significantly stronger.

Can I sue if I was partially at fault for being in the parking lot at night?

Missouri’s pure comparative fault rule allows you to recover damages even if you were partially at fault. Walking alone at night is not negligence. Your recovery may be reduced by your assigned percentage of fault, but you are not barred from pursuing a claim.

How long do I have to file a lawsuit after a parking lot attack in Missouri?

The statute of limitations for personal injury is five years from the date of injury (§ 516.120(4)). For wrongful death, it is three years from the date of death (§ 537.080). Contact an attorney as soon as possible to preserve evidence.

What if the parking lot had cameras, but they were not working?

Non-functional cameras may actually strengthen your case. If the property owner installed cameras, that suggests they recognized the need for surveillance. If those cameras were broken or not recording at the time of the attack, that demonstrates a failure to maintain the very security measures the property owner knew were necessary.

Can I sue for emotional distress after a parking lot assault?

Yes. Emotional distress, PTSD, anxiety, and depression are compensable damages in Missouri negligent security cases. Violent attacks often cause severe psychological harm that lasts long after physical injuries have healed. These non-economic damages can represent a significant portion of the total recovery.

Get Help With Your Parking Lot Attack Claim in Central Missouri

Being attacked in a place where you expected to be safe is a deeply traumatic experience. The physical injuries may heal, but the fear, anxiety, and sense of violation can persist for years. When that attack happened because a property owner chose not to invest in basic security measures they knew were needed, you have the right to hold them accountable.

At Deputy & Mizell, attorney Dan Mizell has spent decades representing injured Missourians in personal injury cases across Central Missouri. He understands the evidence needed to prove negligent security claims and how to counter the blame-shifting tactics that property owners and their insurance companies use to avoid responsibility. Your initial consultation is always free, and there is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.

Call Deputy & Mizell at 417-532-2191 or contact us online to schedule your free consultation today.
We have offices in Lebanon and Camdenton and serve clients throughout Central Missouri and the Lake of the Ozarks region.

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Consult with a qualified attorney to discuss the specific facts of your situation.