California Slip And Fall Law

Premises liability laws in California are based on the concept of negligence. California Civil Code 1714 holds California entities responsible for injuries caused when the entities fail to act with “ordinary care or skill” in managing their property.

Negligence is the failure to be reasonably careful for the purpose of preventing harm. Acting as a reasonably careful entity would not act under the same circumstances is acting negligently. It is also negligent to fail to act as a reasonably careful entity would act in the same situation.

Premises liability claims ultimately come down to if negligence on behalf of an entity who owned, leased, controlled or occupied property caused somebody to be injured.

What Must Be Proven In A Slip And Fall Claim?

If a plaintiff has been injured after slipping and falling on someone else’s property, the plaintiff must be able to prove four elements in order to establish a successful slip and fall lawsuit in California:

• The defendant owned, occupied, leased or controlled the property that the slip and fall accident happened on;
• The defendant negligently used or maintained the property;
• The plaintiff was injured;
• A substantial factor in the plaintiff being injured was the negligence of the defendant.

These elements are very similar to the elements that plaintiffs must prove in order to establish a successful injury claim in California based on negligence:

• The defendant was negligent;
• The plaintiff was injured;
• A substantial factor in the plaintiff being injured was the negligence of the defendant.

The elements are similar because premises liability law in California is based on negligence law in California. Kesner v. Superior Court saw the court rule that “the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases.”

Rowland v. Christian saw the court rule that California premises owners owe those on their property a “duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring” them.

Alcaraz v. Vece saw the court rule that those who control but do not own property are liable for injuries which happen on the property due to their negligence.

Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty. saw the court rule that those who own, occupy, lease or control property can also be held liable for injuries which occur off of the property if those injuries occurred because negligent management of the property created a dangerous condition offsite. That case ruled that an employer’s negligence created a dangerous condition, asbestos which workers would be exposed to, which in turn created a dangerous offsite condition, that being asbestos that employees would carry home with them on their clothing, exposing those they live with to the asbestos.

What Is The Basic Duty Of Care In A Slip And Fall Case?

Those who own, lease, occupy or control property in California are negligent when they fail to exercise reasonable care to ensure the property is reasonably safe. They have a duty to use reasonable care to identify, replace, repair or warn about dangerous conditions.

There are many factors that come into play when determining whether a defendant in a slip and fall case used reasonable care, including:

• The property location;
• How likely it is that someone would enter the property as the plaintiff did;
• How likely harm was to occur;
• How serious harm was likely to be;
• If the defendant knew or should have known about a dangerous condition;
• How difficult it was to protect from harm occurring due to the condition;
• How much control the defendant had over the condition.

Delgado v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. saw the court state that premises liability claims involve defendants allowing dangerous conditions on their property or failing to take reasonable action to make sure their property is secured against third party criminal acts.

Staats v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC saw the court rule that those who control property must inspect it or take other means to evaluate its condition, and must remedy or adequately warn about dangerous conditions that would be discovered when exercising reasonable care.

Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC saw the court rule that the basic duty of care in premises liability cases extends to a duty to maintain property in a way which doesn’t create an unreasonable risk of harm to those offsite.

Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation saw the court rule that property owners can’t escape premises liability claims via delegating the duty of care to independent contractors.

Who Controls A Property?

In slip and fall cases, those who are considered to control a property despite not owning or leasing the property are those who use the property like it belongs to them. California entities are responsible for making sure that any areas of property that they control are safe.

University of Southern California v Superior Court saw the court rule that entities have a duty to make sure any land they exercise control over is safe, no matter if they own the land or not.

What Is An Unsafe Condition?

An unsafe condition is a condition on a property which creates an unreasonable risk of injury. Defendants in slip and fall cases in California who use or maintain property are found to be responsible for dangerous conditions via their own negligence when:

• A condition located on the property caused an unreasonable risk of someone being injured;
• They knew or should have known about the condition;
• They failed to repair, protect others from or warn about the condition.

Rowland v. Christian saw the court rule that occupiers of land who know about conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm are negligent when they fail to repair or warn about the condition when they are aware that someone on the property is about to encounter the condition.

Swanberg v. O’Mectin saw the court rule that lack of knowledge about a dangerous condition does not constitute a defense, as landowners’ duty of care extends to inspecting property in order to discover dangerous conditions.

Are Warnings About Obviously Unsafe Conditions Necessary?

In California, those who own, lease, occupy or control property do not have a duty to warn others about dangerous conditions when those conditions are so obvious that it can be reasonably expected that people would observe them.

However, there is still a duty to use reasonable care to protect others from harm when it’s foreseeable that the dangerous condition might injure someone who encounters the dangerous condition out of necessity.

Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. saw the court rule that there is no duty to warn others about obviously unsafe conditions.

Osborn v. Mission Ready Mix saw the court rule that landowners might be duty-bound to protect people from being harmed by obviously unsafe conditions, even when they lack a duty to warn about the conditions.

What Duties Do Landlords Have?

California landlords have duties to protect against slip and fall accidents.

California landlords who legally possess rental properties must periodically inspect the properties with reasonable regularity. Landlords who lease property to a tenant, renew their lease or take back possession of property from a tenant must do a reasonable property inspection, looking for unsafe conditions, and must take reasonable action to prevent injury as a result of conditions which were discovered or reasonably should have been found. This inspection needs to include any common areas that the landlord controls.

After tenants take possession of property, landlords need to take reasonable action to prevent harm due to unsafe conditions in areas of the property under the control of the landlord when the landlord knows or should know about the conditions.

Portillo v. Aiassa saw the court rule that landlords owe tenants a duty of care to maintain and provide safe conditions on any leased premises.

Day v. Lupo Vine Street, L.P. saw the court rule that landlords’ reasonable care of duty involves ensuring that properties are safe when tenancy begins and repairing any hazards learned about afterwards.

What About Sidewalks Next To Properties?

Those who own, lease, occupy and control property in California have a duty to avoid creating unsafe conditions which might cause slip and fall accidents on public streets and sidewalks next to the property.

Selger v. Steven Brothers, Inc. saw the court rule that property owners have “always had” a duty to act in a way which renders sidewalks next to their property dangerous to members of the public.

If someone slips and falls on a sidewalk due to a dangerous condition in California, if they want to establish a successful premises liability claim against an entity who owns, leases, occupies or controls property next to the sidewalk, they need to prove that:

• The defendant altered or asked the city to alter the part of the sidewalk that injured them;
• The alteration solely benefited the property of the defendant;
• The alteration’s purpose was different from ordinary use of the sidewalk;
• The defendant wasn’t reasonably careful in maintaining or creating the sidewalk alteration;
• The plaintiff was injured;
• A substantial factor in the plaintiff being injured was the negligence of the defendant.

What If A Slip And Fall Happened During A Recreational Activity?

Those who own, control, lease or occupy property in California are not responsible for injuries when the injuries result from the injured’s entry on the property for the purpose of recreation under California Civil Code 846, but they may still be responsible for injuries when the injured can prove that:

• The defendant maliciously or willfully failed to warn about or protect others from a dangerous condition;
• The defendant charged a fee for permission to enter the property with the purpose of recreation, or;
• The defendant invited the injured to enter their property.

How Is It Determined If A Defendant Should Have Known About A Dangerous Condition?

It is determined that defendants in slip and fall lawsuits in California should have known about dangerous conditions when, under the circumstances, dangerous conditions exist long enough and are of such a nature that defendants have enough time to discover them and, utilizing reasonable care:

• Repair the dangerous condition;
• Protect others from being harmed by the condition, or;
• Provide adequate warning about the condition.

Those who own, lease, control or occupy property in California must conduct reasonable inspections of their property to identify unsafe conditions. When inspections aren’t made in a reasonable time frame prior to accidents, it may be concluded that the dangerous condition existed for a long enough period of time for it to be discovered utilizing reasonable care.

Ortega v. Kmart Corp. saw the court rule that evidence that property hasn’t been inspected within a reasonable time frame “may warrant an inference” that a dangerous condition existed for long enough that someone exercising reasonable care would discover it.

What If An Employee Created A Dangerous Condition?

Those who own, lease, control or occupy property in California are considered to be aware of dangerous conditions when the conditions are created by their employees who are acting in the scope of their employment.

Hatfield v. Levy Brothers saw the court rule that owners of property “cannot be permitted to assert” they have no knowledge or knowledge of dangerous conditions when those conditions are created by their employees who are acting in the scope of their employment.