Premises Liability: Essential Factual Elements and the Legal Framework

Premises liability claims are grounded in the principle that property owners—or those who control, lease, or occupy property—must exercise reasonable care in managing their premises to prevent harm to others. In a typical premises liability claim, the plaintiff alleges that they were injured due to the way the defendant managed their property. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove four essential elements: first, that the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property; second, that the defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of that property; third, that the plaintiff was harmed; and fourth, that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

The legal duty to exercise due care is well established in California law. Under Civil Code section 1714(a), every person is required to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to others. As explained in Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159 [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 384 P.3d 283], the elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are essentially the same—namely, a legal duty of care, a breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.

In Kesner, "Johnny Kesner’s (plaintiff’s) uncle, George Kesner, worked for Pneumo Abex, LLC (defendant). George was exposed to asbestos at work and would sometimes come home and roughhouse with Johnny while wearing his work clothes. Johnny was diagnosed with mesothelioma, and he brought an action against Abex and other defendants alleging that he contracted mesothelioma because of his secondary exposure to the asbestos on his uncle’s clothing. Lynne Haver’s husband, Mike Haver, worked for BNSF Railway Company (defendant). Mike was exposed to asbestos at work, and Lynne laundered Mike’s work clothes. Lynne died of mesothelioma. Lynne’s family (plaintiffs) brought a wrongful-death action against BNSF based on Lynne’s secondary exposure to asbestos. The lower courts in Kesner’s and the Havers’s cases reached different conclusions about whether employers and premises owners who use asbestos in their facilities have a duty to prevent nonemployees from secondary exposure to asbestos. The California Supreme Court consolidated the cases for review." See here. 

The court ruled that the ownership or control of a property inherently creates an affirmative duty to manage and maintain that property in a manner that minimizes risk. This duty extends to all persons on the premises, as the mere possession of the property imposes the responsibility to adhere to the same standard of care that applies in general negligence cases—a principle underscored by the Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561] decision.

Courts have consistently held that property owners are liable for injuries sustained on their premises when they fail to exercise ordinary care. For example, in Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 [264 Cal.Rptr. 756], the court affirmed that a failure to manage or maintain a property responsibly constitutes negligence. Moreover, the duty of care extends even to those who may not be the outright owners of the property. As noted in Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 448, 929 P.2d 1239], control of the premises alone is sufficient to establish liability. This principle underscores that a defendant does not need to own and possess the property entirely; mere control is enough to impose an affirmative duty.

Furthermore, the duty of care imposed on a property owner is not confined solely to the boundaries of the premises. As elaborated in Kesner, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1159, a landowner’s duty encompasses measures to avoid exposing individuals to risks of injury that might occur offsite if the property is maintained in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk. This broader interpretation reflects the evolving understanding of premises liability, ensuring that the duty to protect potential victims extends as far as is reasonably necessary.

Secondary sources such as Witkin’s Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017, Torts §§ 1224-1228), the California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. §§ 4.72-4.73), and works by Levy et al. in California Torts, Ch. 15, General Premises Liability further reinforce these principles. These authorities provide additional context and analysis, offering legal practitioners a comprehensive understanding of the nuances in premises liability claims.

In summary, a successful premises liability claim requires the plaintiff to establish that the defendant controlled the property, was negligent in its maintenance or use, and that this negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm. Landmark cases such as Rowland v. Christian, Kesner v. Superior Court, Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp., and Alcaraz v. Vece have shaped the contours of this legal doctrine, emphasizing that the duty arising from property control is akin to that imposed in general negligence claims. As property owners and controllers navigate their responsibilities, understanding these legal standards is essential to both preventing injuries and mitigating liability when accidents occur.

Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law Firm

At Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.

Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.