CACI No. 1000. Premises Liability - Essential Factual Elements

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2024 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
citations omitted.)
“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].)
‘[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.)
“[A] landowners 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 landowners 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.)
Secondary Sources
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
(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)
California Civil Practice: Torts §§ 16:1-16:3 (Thomson Reuters)

© Judicial Council of California.