CACI No. 1002. Extent of Control Over Premises Area

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF
1002.Extent of Control Over Premises Area
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] controlled the property
involved in [name of plaintiff]’s harm, even though [name of defendant]
did not own or lease it. A person controls property that the person does
not own or lease when the person uses the property as if it were the
person’s own. A person is responsible for maintaining, in reasonably safe
condition, all areas that person controls.
New September 2003; Revised May 2020
Directions for Use
Use this instruction only for property that is not actually owned or leased by the
Sources and Authority
“[A] defendant’s duty to maintain land in a reasonably safe condition extends to
land over which the defendant exercises control, regardless of who owns the
land. ‘As long as the defendant exercised control over the land, the location of
the property line would not affect the defendant’s potential liability.’
(University of Southern California v. Superior Court (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 429,
445 [241 Cal.Rptr.3d 616], internal citation omitted.)
“Even if a hazard located on publicly owned property is created by a third party,
an abutting owner or occupier of private property will be held liable for injuries
caused by that hazard if the owner or occupier has “dramati[cally] assert[ed]”
any of the “right[s] normally associated with ownership or . . . possession”
by undertaking affirmative acts that are consistent with being the owner or
occupier of the property and that go beyond the ‘minimal, neighborly
maintenance of property owned by another.’ (Lopez v. City of Los Angeles
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 244, 258 [269 Cal.Rptr.3d 377].)
“In Alcaraz . . . , our Supreme Court held that a landowner who exercises
control over an adjoining strip of land has a duty to protect or warn others
entering the adjacent land of a known hazard there. This duty arises even if the
person does not own or exercise control over the hazard and even if the person
does not own the abutting property on which the hazard is located. . . . [¶] The
Alcaraz court concluded that such evidence was ‘sufficient to raise a triable issue
of fact as to whether defendants exercised control over the strip of land
containing the meter box and thus owed a duty of care to protect or warn
plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition of the property.’ (Contreras v.
Anderson (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 188, 197-198 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 69], footnote and
internal citations omitted.)
The crucial element is control. [Citation.]’ ‘[W]e have placed major
importance on the existence of possession and control as a basis for tortious
liability for conditions on the land.’ (Salinas v. Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th
404, 414 [82 Cal.Rptr.3d 735], original italics, internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 1225, 1226
1 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 15, General Premises Liability, §§ 15.02-15.03
(Matthew Bender)
11 California Real Estate Law and Practice, Ch. 381, Tort Liability of Property
Owners, §§ 381.03-381.04 (Matthew Bender)
29 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 334, Landlord and Tenant:
Claims for Damages, § 334.52 (Matthew Bender)
36 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 421, Premises Liability, § 421.15
(Matthew Bender)
17 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 178, Premises Liability, § 178.60 et seq.
(Matthew Bender)
1 California Civil Practice: Torts § 16:2 (Thomson Reuters)

© Judicial Council of California.