Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754
Attorney Michael Rehm represents people injured in slip, trip, and fall accidents throughout Fresno and Fresno County. Premises liability claims — cases where a dangerous condition on someone else's property caused the injury — are among the most contested personal injury cases in California. Property owners and their insurers dispute notice, causation, and comparative fault aggressively. This page explains the legal standard that governs these claims under California law and how they are handled in Fresno County Superior Court.
The Legal Standard — Premises Liability in California
Property owners in California owe a duty of care to people on their property. California Civil Code section 1714(a) holds everyone responsible for injury occasioned to another by want of ordinary care or skill in the management of property or person. The full text of Civil Code section 1714 is at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. This duty applies regardless of whether the injured person was an invitee, licensee, or — with some exceptions — a trespasser.
The California Supreme Court in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 replaced the traditional common-law categories with a general reasonableness standard. A property owner must act as a reasonable person under the circumstances with respect to the condition of the property and the foreseeable use by others. The standard of care is the same for commercial property owners as for residential ones, though the practical implications differ based on the nature of the property and the activity occurring on it.
To establish liability, the injured person must prove that the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property; that the defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; that the plaintiff was harmed; and that the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm. (CACI 1000.)
Notice — The Key Issue in Most Slip and Fall Cases
In most slip and fall cases, the critical disputed issue is whether the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition. The defense will argue they had no actual or constructive notice. Constructive notice means the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it. A fresh spill that was present for two minutes is different from a broken floor tile that has been present for six months. Evidence of notice includes prior complaints, maintenance records, surveillance video showing the condition before the fall, and the nature of the condition itself — a permanent structural defect like a cracked sidewalk is different from a transient spill.
For retail and commercial premises, the courts recognize a duty to conduct regular inspections. A store that conducts hourly inspection sweeps and documents them is in a different legal position than one with no inspection protocol at all. Spoliation of surveillance video — where the property owner fails to preserve footage that showed how long the condition existed — can support adverse inference instructions at trial.
Recreational Use Immunity
California Civil Code section 846 limits the duty of care owed by landowners to persons who use their property for recreational purposes without charge. Under this statute, a landowner who opens property for free recreational use is not liable for injury to a recreational user absent willful or malicious misconduct. This immunity does not apply where the property owner charges for entry, where the condition giving rise to the injury involves willful or malicious conduct, or — for claims against public entities — under the California Government Claims Act framework. The recreational use immunity statute is a defense the defendant must raise and prove; it is not a bar that applies automatically to all outdoor injuries.
Government Property — Dangerous Conditions of Public Property
Where the fall occurred on public property — a city sidewalk, a public park, a government building — the claim runs against a public entity under Government Code section 835. A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property if the entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to take reasonable protective action within a reasonable time. Government entity claims require a tort claim filed with the entity within six months of the incident under Government Code section 911.2. Failure to timely file can potentially bar the claim. Tolling may apply depending on the facts.
Comparative Fault
California applies pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. The defense will argue the injured person was not watching where they were going, was wearing inappropriate footwear, or was distracted. These arguments reduce, but do not eliminate, recovery. Whether comparative fault applies and in what proportion is a question of fact for the jury.
Filing a Lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court
Premises liability lawsuits arising in Fresno County are filed in the Fresno County Superior Court, B.F. Sisk Courthouse, 1130 O Street, Fresno, CA 93721. Electronic filing is mandatory for represented parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(g). Fresno County Local Rules require ADR before the mandatory settlement conference and in-person attendance at the Trial Readiness Hearing the Friday before trial.
Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations for premises liability claims is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. Missing this deadline can potentially bar the lawsuit. Tolling doctrines may apply. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.
Related Pages
Attorney Michael Rehm handles slip and fall and premises liability cases throughout Fresno and Fresno County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.
The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.