Premises Liability PDF

Demand Team PREMISES LIABILITY August 1, 2024  DEFINITION An owner, occupier, or lessor of land and premises can be liable for dangerous conditions on the premises, whether natural or artificial. Restatement [Second] of Torts, § 422; CACI 1003. ...

Demand Team PREMISES LIABILITY August 1, 2024  DEFINITION An owner, occupier, or lessor of land and premises can be liable for dangerous conditions on the premises, whether natural or artificial. Restatement [Second] of Torts, § 422; CACI 1003.  The owner/occupier/lessor of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care (care which persons of ordinary prudence would use) in the use or maintenance of the premises in order to avoid exposing Duty persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, § 343; Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968); CACI 1001. The owner, occupier, or lessor is in breach of the standard of care when he/she fails to use ordinary Breach care to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.  One must prove that the breach of a duty is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, damage, loss, or harm. Causation Mitchell v. Gonzales, 54 Cal. 3d 1041, (1991); CACI 430. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof of all damages legally flowing from defendant's negligence. Damages Civil Code §§ 1714, 3333; CACI 201.  CACI NO. 1000 ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS [Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed because of the way [name of defendant] managed [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] property. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. That [name of defendant] [owned/leased/occupied/controlled] the property; 2. That [name of defendant] was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; 3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and 4. That [name of defendant]’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.  CACI NO. 1003 UNSAFE CONDITIONS [Name of defendant] was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property if: 1.A condition on the property created an unreasonable risk of harm; 2. [Name of defendant] knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about it; and 3. [Name of defendant] failed to repair the condition, protect against harm from the condition, or give adequate warning of the condition.  DEFENSES Open and Obvious There is no duty to warn of a condition of the land which is 'open and obvious': Flores v. GroumDevelopment Co., 53 C. 2d 347 (1959); cf. Craddock v. Kmart Corporation, 89 Cal. App. 4th 1300 (2001) [unless distracted by the condition of the premises]; cf. Martinez v. Chippewa Enterprises, Inc., 121 Cal. App. 4th 1179 (2004) [although there may still be a duty to repair].  DEFENSES Trivial Defect A property owner is not liable for damages arising from a "minor, trivial or insignificant" defect in the property. Whiting v. National City, 9 Cal. 2d 163 (1937). All the surrounding circumstances - not just size - must be considered before a determination can be made that a defect is "a trivial defect" and therefore not actionable. Caloroso v. Hathaway, 122 Cal. App. 4th 992 (2004).  DEFENSES Recreational Immunity Where a plaintiff enters upon the land uninvited and without paying for any recreational purpose, defendant is immune from a claim of "dangerous condition," unless defendant willfully or maliciously fails to guard or warn. Manuel v. PG&E, 173 Cal. App. 4th 927 (2009); Civil Code § 846. thaway, 122 Cal. App. 4th 992 (2004). THANK YOU