CACI No. 1000. Premises Liability—Essential Factual Elements

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2017 edition)

Download PDF
1000.Premises Liability—Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed because of the way
[name of defendant] managed [his/her/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
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.
New September 2003; Revised June 2005, December 2011
Directions for Use
For cases involving public entity defendants, see instructions on dangerous
conditions of public property (CACI No. 1100 et seq.).
Sources and Authority
• General Duty to Exercise Due Care. Civil Code section 1714(a).
“Since Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d
561], the liability of landowners for injuries to people on their property has
been governed by general negligence principles.” (Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1407 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 206].)
• “Premises liability is a form of negligence based on the holding in Rowland v.
Christian,supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, and is described 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 [264 Cal.Rptr. 756].)
• “[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming
upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant
right to control and manage the premises.” (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies
(1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368 [178 Cal.Rptr. 783, 636 P.2d 1121].)
• “ ‘[P]roperty owners are liable for injuries on land they own, possess, or
control.’ But . . . the phrase ‘own, possess, or control’ is stated in the
alternative. A defendant need not own, possess and control property in order to
be held liable; control alone is sufficient.” (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th
1149, 1162 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 448, 929 P.2d 1239], original italics, internal
citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, §§ 1082–1086
1Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 15, General Premises Liability, § 15.01
(Matthew Bender)
6 California Real Estate Law and Practice, Ch. 170, The Premises: Duties and
Liabilities, §§ 170.01, 170.20 (Matthew Bender)
11 California Real Estate Law and Practice, Ch. 381, Tort Liability of Property
Owners, § 381.01 (Matthew Bender)
36 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 421, Premises Liability, § 421.11
(Matthew Bender)
17 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 178, Premises Liability, § 178.20 et seq.
(Matthew Bender)
1 California Civil Practice: Torts §§ 16:1–16:3 (Thomson Reuters)

© Judicial Council of California.