Bank and ATM Assault Claims in Georgia

Published Read 6 min read

On this page

A customer is robbed at gunpoint at a drive-up ATM after dark, in a lot where the lights have been out for weeks and a similar robbery happened the month before. The person who pulled the trigger may be unknown, unfound, or insolvent, so the question that decides whether the injured customer recovers anything is whether the bank or the property owner can be held responsible for the conditions that let the crime happen. Since April 2025, Georgia answers that question under a new negligent-security statute that is markedly narrower than the premises law it replaced.

The Crime Was Someone Else’s Act, So Why the Owner

An ATM assault is a third-party criminal act, and Georgia long allowed an injured customer to pursue the property owner or occupier on the theory that it failed to keep the premises reasonably safe against foreseeable crime. Senate Bill 68, signed April 21, 2025 and applying to claims arising on or after that date, replaced the general premises analysis for these claims with a dedicated statutory scheme, OCGA 51-3-50 through 51-3-57, that for the first time defines “negligent security” and makes it the exclusive framework for most third-party-crime claims against an owner, occupier, or security contractor. The bank’s branch lot or a third party’s lot hosting a leased ATM falls squarely within it.

The Five Conditions That Now Gate Liability

Under the new article, an owner or occupier can be liable to an invitee for negligent security only if a specific set of conditions is satisfied. Drawn from OCGA 51-3-51, the elements operate as a checklist rather than a general reasonableness inquiry.

  • The third party’s wrongful conduct was reasonably foreseeable.
  • The particular injury was a foreseeable result of that conduct.
  • The conduct was connected to a known hazardous condition on the premises that posed a risk higher than usual.
  • The owner or occupier failed to exercise ordinary care to remedy the condition or otherwise keep the premises safe.
  • That failure was a proximate cause of the injury.

A bare showing that a crime occurred and that better security might have prevented it no longer suffices; each element must independently hold.

Foreseeability Is Now a Narrow, Knowledge-Based Test

The decisive change is how foreseeability is proved. The prior law asked broadly whether crime was reasonably foreseeable; the new statute requires actual knowledge tied to specific facts. Foreseeability under the SB 68 framework generally rests on a specific imminent threat the owner actually knew of, on prior substantially similar crimes on the premises that the owner had documented knowledge of, or on prior similar crimes within a defined radius of the property, again with actual knowledge. For an ATM robbery, that shifts the inquiry toward the branch’s own incident history and police-reported crime in the immediate vicinity, rather than generalized statistics about ATM crime. Lighting and visibility remain relevant, but only as the “known hazardous condition” that, combined with actual knowledge of nearby similar crime, can establish the duty; poor lighting alone, without the knowledge predicate, does not.

The Statutory Carve-Outs

The framework also names situations in which the owner is not liable for a third party’s crime. Among them, the protections do not reach an injured person who was a trespasser, an injury that occurred off the premises, a location where the owner had no legal authority to exclude the third party, a person being evicted as a tenant or guest, an injured party who was committing a felony or a theft-related misdemeanor, and an injury in a single-family residence. For a public-facing ATM serving customers, the everyday banking customer is an invitee outside these carve-outs, but the exclusions can matter where, for instance, the machine sits in a location the bank does not control or the injury occurs beyond the premises line.

Apportioning Fault to the Person Who Pulled the Trigger

Even where the owner’s negligence is established, it does not absorb the whole loss. The negligent-security scheme requires fault to be apportioned among the owner or occupier, the criminal third party, and any others who contributed, under OCGA 51-12-33. The robber’s share of fault is assigned even though the robber may never be found or able to pay, so the recoverable amount against the bank is reduced by the percentage the trier of fact assigns to the criminal actor and to anyone else. The broader operation of comparative fault, including the rule barring recovery for a claimant 50 percent or more at fault, is owned by the comparative-negligence discussion and only referenced here.

A Simple Allocation Illustration

A short example shows the apportionment mechanic. Suppose total damages are found to be 100,000 dollars, and the trier of fact assigns 70 percent fault to the robber, 25 percent to the property owner for the unlit lot and ignored prior robbery, and 5 percent to the customer. The owner’s share would be 25 percent of the total, and the customer’s own share would reduce recovery further, with the robber’s 70 percent generally uncollectable in practice. The figures are illustrative of how allocation arithmetic works under OCGA 51-12-33 and say nothing about what any particular claim is worth or how a jury would assign fault.

Narrowed Security Duty Paired With Changed Damages Proof

The same 2025 statute that narrowed the security duty also changed the damages proof. For claims arising on or after April 21, 2025, OCGA 51-12-1.1 limits recoverable medical specials to the reasonable value of necessary care and makes both billed charges and amounts actually paid admissible, which can move the recoverable medical figure for treating assault injuries toward the paid amount. Where the amount in controversy is at least 150,000 dollars, either party may request a bifurcated trial separating fault from damages, a procedure detailed in the trial discussions referenced elsewhere. The general rule that ordinary personal-injury non-economic damages carry no statutory cap is addressed in the damages discussions, and the two-year filing deadline for the injury belongs to the limitations discussion.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Georgia bank be liable for a robbery committed by a stranger at its ATM?
Possibly, but only under the SB 68 negligent-security framework, which requires that the crime and injury were foreseeable based on the owner’s actual knowledge of a specific threat or prior substantially similar crimes on or near the premises, a known hazardous condition, a failure to use ordinary care, and proximate cause.

Does poor lighting alone make the bank responsible?
No. Inadequate lighting can serve as the known hazardous condition, but under the new statute it must be paired with the owner’s actual knowledge of foreseeable similar crime; lighting deficiencies without that knowledge predicate do not by themselves establish liability.

What happens to the recovery if the robber is never caught?
Fault is still apportioned to the criminal third party under OCGA 51-12-33, and that share reduces the amount recoverable from the owner even though the robber may be unidentified or unable to pay.

Are all ATM assaults covered by the negligent-security statute?
No. The statute lists carve-outs, including injuries to trespassers, injuries off the premises, locations the owner has no authority to control, and injuries in single-family residences, any of which can place a claim outside the framework.

  • Negligent-security framework and definitions, Senate Bill 68 (2025), OCGA 51-3-50 through 51-3-57 (claims arising on or after April 21, 2025)
  • Invitee liability conditions for negligent security, OCGA 51-3-51
  • Apportionment of fault to the criminal third party and others, OCGA 51-12-33, addressed in the comparative-negligence discussion
  • Reasonable-value medical special damages, OCGA 51-12-1.1 (SB 68)
  • Two-year limitations period for personal injury, OCGA 9-3-33, addressed in the limitations discussion

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about bank and ATM assault claims under Georgia law. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and may not reflect the most recent legal developments. How the negligent-security statute applies depends on the location, the foreseeability evidence, and the specific facts. A person dealing with a Georgia ATM or bank assault matter should consult a licensed Georgia attorney about their particular situation.

Related posts:

  1. Exercise Equipment Injuries in Georgia: Treadmill and Weight Machine Defects A treadmill belt that lurches and throws a runner backward, a weight-machine cable that parts and drops the stack, a rack that fails under a loaded bar: fitness equipment is......
  2. Loss of Consortium Claims in Georgia: Spousal Injury Rights When a serious injury changes one spouse, the marriage absorbs the change too. Georgia answers that reality with a distinct cause of action: loss of consortium gives the uninjured spouse......
  3. Personal Injury Law Firms in Macon, Georgia Legal practitioners specializing in injury claims serve accident victims and individuals harmed through negligence across the Middle Georgia region. Macon’s position where Interstate 75 meets Interstate…...
  4. Pothole and Road Defect Claims in Georgia A blown tire on a sunken shoulder, a rim cracked on a months-old pothole, a loss of control where pavement had crumbled at a lane edge: when a Georgia road......
  5. Structured Settlements vs. Lump Sum: Making the Right Choice in Georgia When a Georgia injury claim resolves for a large sum, the recovery can arrive in two very different forms. One is a single lump-sum payment. The other is a structured......
  6. Collecting a Judgment Against an Uncooperative Defendant in Georgia A verdict and a paid claim are not the same thing. A Georgia jury can return a number, the clerk can enter judgment, and the injured person can still receive......
  7. Georgia Offer of Settlement: O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-68 Explained A formal document arrives a year before trial: the defense offers $150,000, the paper names OCGA Section 9-11-68 by statute, and a thirty-day fuse begins to burn. Unlike the back-and-forth......
  8. Laundromat and Car Wash Injury Claims in Georgia A laundromat and an automatic car wash share a defining trait that shapes every injury claim against them: they are wet by design and powered by heavy machinery that grips,......
  9. Broken Bone Claims in Georgia: From Simple Fractures to Compound Breaks A fracture has one advantage that few other injuries share: it is visible on a film. A clean break across a radius, a shattered tibia, a bone that has pierced......
  10. Soft Tissue Injuries in Georgia: Proving Invisible Damage A clean X-ray, no blood, no cast, and a claimant who walked away from a Georgia collision only to lose the ability to turn their neck two days later: that......
  11. Property Damage Claims: Totaled Cars and Diminished Value in Georgia A vehicle is repaired flawlessly after a Georgia collision, the paint matches, every panel lines up, and it still sells for less than the identical car next to it on......
  12. Bridge and Overpass Failure Claims in Georgia Concrete that spalls from an overpass onto a windshield, a deck that gives way, a structure scoured loose by flood water: bridge failures produce catastrophic harm and a tangle of......
  13. How Pre-Existing Conditions Affect Your Georgia Injury Damages Degenerative disc disease that showed on an MRI years before a wreck. A shoulder that was already arthritic. A prior concussion. When an injured person in Georgia walks into a......
  14. Daubert Challenges to Expert Testimony in Georgia Courts In a Georgia injury case that rises or falls on causation, the contest over whether an expert ever reaches the witness stand can matter more than the testimony itself. A......
  15. What to Expect at a Georgia Personal Injury Trial The overwhelming majority of Georgia personal injury cases settle, but the ones that do not follow a sequence that has its own logic and, since 2025, its own new architecture.......
  16. Church and Religious Organization Liability in Georgia A loose handrail on a sanctuary staircase, an unsupervised toddler in a Sunday-school wing, an icy parking lot after a Wednesday-night service. Injuries at houses of worship raise a recurring......