When Are Property Owners Liable For Accidents

By Law Offices | Felicia Yates & Associates

This is Part Six in a series of blog articles on California Personal Injury (PI) law.

Premises liability - which falls under the category of personal injury (PI) law - covers liability that property owners (residential & commercial) may incur for injuries and damages sustained while on the premises of a piece of property under the ownership and control of an individual or entity. 

For example, slip & fall injuries, dog bites, construction accidents, amusement park mishaps, and swimming pool dangers, all fall under the category of premises liability.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 1000 outlines the essential elements that a plaintiff would need to prove in order to hold a defendant responsible under the doctrine of premises liability.  These basic elements are as follows: 

(a) The defendant owned, leased, occupied or controlled the subject property;

(b) The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the subject property;

(c) The plaintiff was harmed as a consequence of the negligence;

(d) The defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.

 

An example of California case authority which addresses these basic elements is as follows:  “The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619). 

 

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) No. 1001 outlines the essential elements that a judge and/or jury may consider in order to determine whether or not a defendant exercised or used reasonable care to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition.  These basic elements are as follows: 

 

(a) The location of the property;

(b) The likelihood that someone would come on to the property in

the same manner as the plaintiff did;

(c) The likelihood of harm;

(d) The probable seriousness of such harm;

(e) Whether the defendant knew or should have known of the

condition that created the risk of harm;

(f) The difficulty of protecting against the risk of such harm;

(g) The extent of the defendant's control over the condition that

created the risk of harm; and

(h) Other relevant factor(s). 

 

An example of California case authority which addresses these basic elements is as follows:   “It is now well established that California law requires landowners to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674). 

 

A hazard on a piece of real estate can be classified in different ways - a hazard may be a patent (obvious) danger, or it may be a latent (concealed) danger.  If a hazard cannot be corrected or repaired in a timely manner, then the property should warn people as soon as possible as to the existence of the hazardous condition.  A grocery store owner should conduct periodic inspections of the premises in order to be sure an undiscovered hazard has not been overlooked.  A store owner may also be held responsible for the actions of a third party - if the store owner has reasonable belief that those actions may result in injury to another person.  An example of a patent danger would be a swimming pool that has not been properly maintained or secured by an enclosure.  This is also referred to in the law as an "Attractive Nuisance" - as swimming pools have been known to attract or entice children, while simultaneously threatening them with potential harm.  An example of a latent danger would be soil contamination or a hidden power line, which can be found on, under, or adjacent to, a piece of property.

 

A Court may consider many factors in determining liability (a legal duty owed), including but not limited to, the following:

• The reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;
• The policies and procedures the defendant has in place to prevent accidents;
• The presence of an adequate insurance policy to cover potential risks.
  

There are some guidelines that can be followed to minimize a property owner's liability in these types of cases.  For example, a swimming pool owner may take the following precautions: 

• Erecting a locked fence around the pool;
• Providing pool safety equipment (i.e. personal life preserver);
• Posting signage that warns of any potential dangers (like the depth of a particularly deep pool, or the fact that there is not a lifeguard on duty);
• Storing chemicals used for pool maintenance (i.e. chlorine tablets) in a safe manner. 

All, or as many as possible, of these suggested safety precautions should be used concurrently, as no one single precaution will necessarily serve as an adequate defense against liability.  For example, telling a judge or jury that you had signage all around your property which warned people that you had a twelve (12) foot deep, Olympic-sized pool - without any other safety precaution, will not be an adequate defense towards preventing you from being held liable in the event of a drowning accident. 

 

Since everyone's case is unique to that individual and the specific circumstances, you should consult with a competent PI attorney to determine your best course of action.  Our office has expertise in this area of the law, and we encourage you to reach out for a free consultation.  Attorney Felicia Yates has been practicing law for over 35 years in California and may be contacted at (702) 817-4661, via e-mail at attorneyfeliciayates@gmail.com, or via website at https://www.attyfeliciayates.com.