Premises Liability Quiz

California Premises Liability Law

• Activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, and more fall under the “recreational purpose” exception for liability.
• The limitation of liability set forth in Civil Code § 846 encourages property owners to allow the general public to engage in recreational activities on privately owned property without incurring tort liability.
• Civil Code § 846 does not limit liability for willful or malicious failure to guard against dangerous conditions, injury where permission was granted for consideration, or injury to persons expressly invited.
• Section 846 does not apply to public entities because it conflicts with certain provisions of the California Tort Claims Act.
• Trespassers are bound to take the premises as they find it, and any liability for injuries is based on willful or wanton conduct.
• The California Supreme Court's decision in Ornelas v. Randolph rejected the "suitability" requirement for recreational purpose immunity under Civil Code § 846.
• If the possessor knew or should have known that a trespasser had come on the land, they had a duty to warn of concealed dangers and to exercise reasonable care.
• Case law often put trespassers into subcategories of “known” and “unknown” trespassers, with a further subcategory for habitual trespassers.
• There is no duty to keep premises safe for trespassing animals, as the duty of a landowner is to persons.
• The “attractive nuisance doctrine” creates an exception to the general rule of no affirmative duty of care owed to trespassers.
• Under this doctrine, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition if the place where the condition exists is one where the possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass.
• The attractive nuisance doctrine also establishes liability if the possessor knows or should know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to trespassing children.

California Premises Liability Law

• Activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, and more fall under the “recreational purpose” exception for liability.
• The limitation of liability set forth in Civil Code § 846 encourages property owners to allow the general public to engage in recreational activities on privately owned property without incurring tort liability.
• Civil Code § 846 does not limit liability for willful or malicious failure to guard against dangerous conditions, injury where permission was granted for consideration, or injury to persons expressly invited.
• Section 846 does not apply to public entities because it conflicts with certain provisions of the California Tort Claims Act.
• Trespassers are bound to take the premises as they find it, and any liability for injuries is based on willful or wanton conduct.
• The California Supreme Court's decision in Ornelas v. Randolph rejected the "suitability" requirement for recreational purpose immunity under Civil Code § 846.
• If the possessor knew or should have known that a trespasser had come on the land, they had a duty to warn of concealed dangers and to exercise reasonable care.
• Case law often put trespassers into subcategories of “known” and “unknown” trespassers, with a further subcategory for habitual trespassers.
• There is no duty to keep premises safe for trespassing animals, as the duty of a landowner is to persons.
• The “attractive nuisance doctrine” creates an exception to the general rule of no affirmative duty of care owed to trespassers.
• Under this doctrine, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition if the place where the condition exists is one where the possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass.
• The attractive nuisance doctrine also establishes liability if the possessor knows or should know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to trespassing children.

California Premises Liability Law 2015

• California law holds a defendant liable for defective or dangerous property conditions only if they own, possess, or control the property.
• Civil Code § 1714 establishes that every person is responsible for any injury caused by their lack of ordinary care or skill in managing their property.
• The duty of a landowner to exercise ordinary care in managing their premises does not automatically establish a legal duty, as there are other factors and policy considerations to be weighed.
• Policy reasons may exempt landowners from owing a duty to certain individuals, such as employees of independent contractors, persons on their land for recreational purposes, or persons exposed to toxins carried home from workers on their premises.
• The determination of the existence and scope of duty is a question of law to be decided by the court, not a jury.
• Landowners and possessors owe a duty to protect against both personal injury and injury to the property of persons.
• Store owners, by inviting the public to enter and do business, must exercise reasonable care for the protection of customers' property brought on-site.
• A customer may need to provide notice to the shopkeeper if they are carrying valuables like money and jewelry before such a claim is actionable.
• Normally, the duties of a landowner or possessor do not extend to persons outside the land, with some exceptions.
• A landowner's duty is generally nondelegable, and they can be held liable for the negligence of their agent regardless of how carefully selected the agent was or whether the agent was an employee.
• The California CACI jury instruction in premises liability cases asks the jury to determine if the defendant "owned, leased, or controlled" the premises before moving on to the negligence elements.
• The duty analysis begins with the principles embodied in Civil Code § 1714(a) but does not necessarily end there, as there are other factors and policy considerations to be weighed.

California Premises Liability Law

• Activities such as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, and more fall under the “recreational purpose” exception for liability.
• The limitation of liability set forth in Civil Code § 846 encourages property owners to allow the general public to engage in recreational activities on privately owned property without incurring tort liability.
• Civil Code § 846 does not limit liability for willful or malicious failure to guard against dangerous conditions, injury where permission was granted for consideration, or injury to persons expressly invited.
• Section 846 does not apply to public entities because it conflicts with certain provisions of the California Tort Claims Act.
• Trespassers are bound to take the premises as they find it, and any liability for injuries is based on willful or wanton conduct.
• The California Supreme Court's decision in Ornelas v. Randolph rejected the "suitability" requirement for recreational purpose immunity under Civil Code § 846.
• If the possessor knew or should have known that a trespasser had come on the land, they had a duty to warn of concealed dangers and to exercise reasonable care.
• Case law often put trespassers into subcategories of “known” and “unknown” trespassers, with a further subcategory for habitual trespassers.
• There is no duty to keep premises safe for trespassing animals, as the duty of a landowner is to persons.
• The “attractive nuisance doctrine” creates an exception to the general rule of no affirmative duty of care owed to trespassers.
• Under this doctrine, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition if the place where the condition exists is one where the possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass.
• The attractive nuisance doctrine also establishes liability if the possessor knows or should know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to trespassing children.