Skip to main content

Catastrophic Injury · Premises

California Premises Liability Attorney

Civil representation for people seriously injured on someone else's property in California — retail stores, hotels, restaurants, parking lots, apartment complexes, public buildings, swimming pools.

Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to all who enter.

California's premises liability framework

California abolished the historical "invitee/licensee/trespasser" categories in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968), and now applies a unified reasonable care standard. A property owner or possessor owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to all persons who enter the property. Whether a duty was breached depends on factors including foreseeability of harm, certainty of injury, closeness of the connection between the conduct and injury, moral blame, policy of preventing future harm, burden on the defendant, and availability of insurance.

Common case categories

  • Slip and fall — wet floors, spills, ice, defective walking surfaces, inadequate warning
  • Trip and fall — uneven sidewalks, broken pavement, transition hazards
  • Inadequate security — assaults in parking lots, hotels, apartment complexes where prior similar incidents made the harm foreseeable (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666)
  • Swimming pool injuries — drownings, diving injuries, defective pool equipment
  • Defective stairs and railings — building code violations, inadequate handrails, riser/tread irregularities
  • Falling object injuries — improperly stocked shelves, falling signage
  • Dog attacks on premises — overlap with our Dog Attack page

Notice — actual and constructive

Most premises cases turn on whether the defendant had notice of the dangerous condition:

  • Actual notice — the defendant knew about the condition (employee saw it, complaint was logged)
  • Constructive notice — the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection should have discovered it
Inspection records, video footage, employee statements, and the type/duration of the hazard all matter. Cases without proof of notice can fail; cases with strong notice evidence often succeed.

Government-property cases — different rules

Premises liability against public entities (cities, counties, state) is governed by Cal. Gov't Code § 835 ("dangerous condition of public property"). The plaintiff must prove the property was in a dangerous condition, the defendant knew or should have known of it, and the entity failed to take reasonable steps to protect against the danger. A claim must be presented to the entity within six months (Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2) before suit.

Damages

Range from modest to catastrophic depending on the injury. Recoverable damages include past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and life-care needs for severe injuries. Inadequate-security cases involving assault may also support punitive damages where the defendant's conduct was sufficiently reckless.

Common Questions

I slipped at a grocery store. Do I have a case?

Maybe. Slip-and-fall cases turn on (1) the existence of a dangerous condition (e.g., spilled liquid), (2) the store's notice of the condition (actual or constructive), and (3) the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address it. Quick-spill cases can be hard; long-standing-hazard cases are more provable. We evaluate the facts.

I was assaulted in an apartment parking lot. Can I sue the landlord?

Possibly, where there is evidence the landlord knew or should have known of prior similar incidents and failed to take reasonable security measures (lighting, security personnel, controlled access, etc.). The leading case is Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666.

I was injured at a city park. Different rules?

Yes. Government-defendant cases require a claim presentation within six months (Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2). The substantive standard (Cal. Gov't Code § 835 — "dangerous condition of public property") is different from private premises liability. These cases are doable but procedurally strict.

Does signing a waiver bar my claim?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Pre-injury waivers are enforced for ordinary negligence in California in many recreational contexts, but they generally do not bar claims for gross negligence, intentional conduct, or violation of statutory duties. We evaluate every waiver case-by-case.

For a confidential review of your case:

“The cases we take are cases where the medical proof can carry the damages. That is not rhetoric — it is the test every file gets at intake.”

Law Offices of David L. Milligan · Fresno, California

Important: This page is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Submitting an inquiry does not create an attorney–client relationship; that relationship is formed only by a written agreement signed after we evaluate the matter for conflicts and merit. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Statutory citations are illustrative; the legal framework applicable to a specific case depends on the facts. The Law Offices of David L. Milligan is licensed in California.