CACI No. 1001. Basic Duty of Care

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF

1001.Basic Duty of Care

A person who [owns/leases/occupies/controls] property is negligent if that

person fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably

safe condition. A person who [owns/leases/occupies/controls] property

must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair,

replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably

expected to harm others.

In deciding whether [name of defendant] used reasonable care, you may

consider, among other factors, the following:

(a) The location of the property;

(b) The likelihood that someone would come on to the property in

the same manner as [name of plaintiff] did;

(d) The probable seriousness of such harm;

(e) Whether [name of defendant] knew or should have known of the

condition that created the risk of harm;

(f) The difficulty of protecting against the risk of such harm; [and]

(g) The extent of [name of defendant]’s control over the condition that

created the risk of harm; [and]

(h) [Other relevant factor(s).]

New September 2003; Revised June 2010, May 2020

Directions for Use

Not all of these factors will apply to every case. Select those that are appropriate to

the facts of the case.

Under the doctrine of nondelegable duty, a property owner cannot escape liability

for failure to maintain property in a safe condition by delegating the duty to an

independent contractor. (Brown v. George Pepperdine Foundation (1943) 23 Cal.2d

256, 260 [143 P.2d 929].) For an instruction for use with regard to a landowner’s

liability for the acts of an independent contractor, see CACI No. 3713,

Nondelegable Duty.

Sources and Authority

• “Broadly speaking, premises liability alleges a defendant property owner allowed

a dangerous condition on its property or failed to take reasonable steps to secure

its property against criminal acts by third parties.” (Delgado v. American Multi-

628

Cinema, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406, fn. 1 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 838],

internal citation omitted.)

• “It is now well established that California law requires landowners to maintain

land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition.” (Ann M. v.

Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 674 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137,

863 P.2d 207], internal citations omitted.)

• “To comply with this duty, a person who controls property must ‘ “ ‘ “inspect

[the premises] or take other proper means to ascertain their condition” ’ ” ’ and,

if a dangerous condition exists that would have been discovered by the exercise

of reasonable care, has a duty to give adequate warning of or remedy it.” (Staats

v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 826, 833 [236 Cal.Rptr.3d

236].)

• “[T]he measures an operator must take to comply with the duty to keep the

premises in a reasonably safe condition depend on the circumstances, and the

issue is a question for the jury unless the facts of the case are not reasonably in

dispute.” (Staats,supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 840.)

• “An owner of real property is ‘not the insurer of [a] visitor’s personal

safety . . . .’ However, an owner is responsible ‘ “for an injury occasioned to

another by [the owner’s] want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his

or her property. . . .” ’ Accordingly, landowners are required ‘to maintain land in

their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’, and to use due care

to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017)

13 Cal.App.5th 934, 943-944 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d 741], internal citations omitted.)

• “[T]he issue concerning a landlord’s duty is not the existence of the duty, but

rather the scope of the duty under the particular facts of the case. Reference to

the scope of the landlord’s duty ‘is intended to describe the specific steps a

landlord must take in a given specific circumstance to maintain the property’s

safety to protect a tenant from a specific class of risk.’ ” (Lawrence v. La Jolla

Beach & Tennis Club, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 11, 23 [179 Cal.Rptr.3d 758],

original italics, internal citation omitted.)

• “The proper test to be applied to the liability of the possessor of land . . . is

whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable man in

view of the probability of injury to others . . . .” (Rowland v. Christian (1968)

69 Cal.2d 108, 119 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561].)

• “It is well settled that a property owner is not liable for damages caused by a

minor, trivial, or insignificant defect in his property. This principle is sometimes

referred to as the ‘trivial defect defense,’ although it is not an affirmative defense

but rather an aspect of duty that a plaintiff must plead and prove. . . . Moreover,

what constitutes a minor defect may be a question of law.” (Cadam v. Somerset

Gardens Townhouse HOA (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 383, 388-389 [132

Cal.Rptr.3d 617], internal citations omitted.)

• In this state, duties are no longer imposed on an occupier of land solely on the

PREMISES LIABILITY CACI No. 1001

629

basis of rigid classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee. The purpose of

plaintiff’s presence on the land is not determinative. We have recognized,

however, that this purpose may have some bearing upon the liability issue. This

purpose therefore must be considered along with other factors weighing for and

against the imposition of a duty on the landowner.” (Ann M., supra, 6 Cal.4th at

pp. 674-675, internal citations omitted.)

• “As stated in Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20,

25 [77 Cal.Rptr. 914], ‘[t]he term “invitee” has not been abandoned, nor have

“trespasser” and “licensee.” In the minds of the jury, whether a possessor of the

premises has acted as a reasonable man toward a plaintiff, in view of the

probability of injury to him, will tend to involve the circumstances under which

he came upon defendant’s land; and the probability of exposure of plaintiff and

others of his class to the risk of injury; as well as whether the condition itself

presented an unreasonable risk of harm, in view of the foreseeable use of the

property.’ Thus, the court concluded, and we agree, Rowland ‘does not generally

abrogate the decisions declaring the substantive duties of the possessor of land to

invitees nor those establishing the correlative rights and duties of invitees.’ (Id.,

at p. 27.)” (Williams v. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d

479, 486-487 [227 Cal.Rptr. 465], overruled on other grounds in Soule v. GM

Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548 [34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 882 P.2d 298].)

• “The distinction between artificial and natural conditions [has been] rejected.”

(Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 371 [178 Cal.Rptr. 783,

636 P.2d 1121].)

• “It must also be emphasized that the liability imposed is for negligence. The

question is whether in the management of his property, the possessor of land has

acted as a reasonable person under all the circumstances. The likelihood of

injury to plaintiff, the probable seriousness of such injury, the burden of reducing

or avoiding the risk, the location of the land, and the possessor’s degree of

control over the risk-creating condition are among the factors to be considered

by the trier of fact in evaluating the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct.”

(Sprecher, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 372.)

• “[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. (Annocki

v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 38 [180 Cal.Rptr.3d

474].)

• “The duty which a possessor of land owes to others to put and maintain it in

reasonably safe condition is nondelegable. If an independent contractor, no

matter how carefully selected, is employed to perform it, the possessor is

answerable for harm caused by the negligent failure of his contractor to put or

maintain the buildings and structures in reasonably safe condition, irrespective of

whether the contractor’s negligence lies in his incompetence, carelessness,

CACI No. 1001 PREMISES LIABILITY

630

inattention or delay.” (Brown, supra, 23 Cal.2d at p. 260.)

• “[A] defendant property owner’s compliance with a law or safety regulation, in

and of itself, does not establish that the owner has utilized due care. The owner’s

compliance with applicable safety regulations, while relevant to show due care,

is not dispositive, if there are other circumstances requiring a higher degree of

care.” (Lawrence, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 31.)

Secondary Sources

6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, § 1228

Friedman et al., California Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant, Ch. 6-A, Liability For

Defective Conditions On Premises, ¶ 6:1 et seq. (The Rutter Group)

Friedman et al., California Practice Guide: Landlord-Tenant, Ch. 6-B, Landlord

Liability For Injuries From Acts Of Others, ¶ 6:48 et seq. (The Rutter Group)

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, 170.03, 170.20 (Matthew Bender)

11 California Real Estate Law and Practice, Ch. 381, Tort Liability of Property

Owners, § 381.01 (Matthew Bender)

29 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 334, Landlord and Tenant:

Claims for Damages, §§ 334.10, 334.50 (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 § 16:3 (Thomson Reuters)

PREMISES LIABILITY CACI No. 1001

631

Page last reviewed May 2023