CACI No. 1000. Premises Liability - Essential Factual Elements
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)Download PDF
1000.Premises Liability - 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
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).
• “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same:
a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.
Premises liability ‘ “is grounded in the possession of the premises and the
attendant right to control and manage the premises” ’; accordingly, ‘ “mere
possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a
sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.” ’ But the duty
arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same
standard of care that applies in negligence cases. In determining whether a
premises owner owes a duty to persons on its property, we apply the Rowland
[Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561]]
factors. Indeed, Rowland itself involved premises liability.’ ” (Kesner v. Superior
Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1159 [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 283, 384 P.3d 283], internal
• “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
• “ ‘[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
• “ ‘ “[A] landowner’s duty of care to avoid exposing others to a risk of injury is
not limited to injuries that occur on premises owned or controlled by the
landowner.” ’ ‘Rather, the duty of care encompasses a duty to avoid exposing
persons to risks of injury that occur off site if the landowner’s property is
maintained in such a manner as to expose persons to an unreasonable risk of
injury offsite.’ ” (Kesner, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 1159, internal citations omitted.)
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 1224-1228
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 15, General Premises Liability, § 15.01
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
17 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 178, Premises Liability, § 178.20 et seq.
California Civil Practice: Torts §§ 16:1-16:3 (Thomson Reuters)
PREMISES LIABILITY CACI No. 1000
© Judicial Council of California.