Premises Liability Lawsuit Funding in Texas

Two years from the date of injury for a premises-liability/negligence claim (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003).

Texas applies modified comparative responsibility with a 51% bar — a plaintiff found 51% or more responsible recovers nothing (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001). Texas has not adopted a unified duty standard: it retains the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser framework, and a commercial invitee is owed a duty to be warned of or protected from unreasonably dangerous conditions the owner knew or should have known about, with ordinary hazards governed by the "time-notice" constructive-knowledge rule of CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. 2000). Negligent-security claims layer an additional, more demanding foreseeability inquiry on top of that framework: Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010), held that a business's duty to intervene in a developing altercation arises once the risk of harm becomes clear and imminent — foreseeability builds as a situation escalates, not merely because violence is generally possible on the premises — while Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998), set out the specific factors Texas courts use to judge foreseeability of a third-party crime against an apartment complex or similar landlord: the proximity, recency, frequency, similarity, and publicity of prior criminal acts on or near the property. Together, these make the prior-incident record and the specific timeline of the triggering event central to any Texas negligent-security claim.

No general statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability claim.

Generally accrues beginning roughly 180 days after the earlier of the claim notice date or the filing of suit, running until judgment, under Tex. Fin. Code §§ 304.104–304.108.

Proper in the county of the defendant's residence or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.002).

Texas has no dedicated consumer litigation funding statute. No statutory cap.

What does the Timberwalk foreseeability test require in a negligent-security claim?

Texas courts weigh the proximity, recency, frequency, similarity, and publicity of prior crimes on or near the property to decide whether the criminal act that injured you was foreseeable to the landlord or business.

A single unrelated crime from years earlier carries far less weight than a documented pattern of similar assaults or robberies in the months before the incident, so building the prior-incident record — police reports, incident logs, and any security assessments already on file — is one of the first steps in evaluating a Texas negligent-security claim.

How does Del Lago's "escalating" standard apply outside a bar fight?

Del Lago Partners v. Smith held that a duty to intervene in developing violence attaches once the danger becomes apparent, not from the moment a property opens its doors — a principle Texas courts have extended to other venues where staff had time to observe and respond to a worsening situation.

This means the timeline of what staff saw and when — security-camera footage, radio logs, witness accounts of any warning signs — is often more decisive than the ultimate severity of the injury in establishing Texas negligent-security liability.

How does the 51% bar interact with a multi-defendant negligent-security case?

Where a property owner, management company, and a separately contracted security firm are all named, Texas juries can allocate responsibility percentages among all of them, and a plaintiff found 51% or more responsible for their own injury still recovers nothing.

That makes both the comparative-fault exposure and the allocation of responsibility among co-defendants — who controlled staffing, who set the security budget, who was actually present — determinative questions in funding a Texas premises case involving more than one potentially liable party.