Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Property owners in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County have a legal obligation to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. When they fail — and someone is hurt as a result — California law provides a path to compensation. Attorney Michael Rehm represents people injured on unsafe property throughout Santa Rosa, including victims of slip and fall accidents, dog bites, inadequate security, and swimming pool incidents. Cases are handled on a contingency fee basis.

Premises Liability Under California Law

California Civil Code § 1714 establishes the foundational rule: everyone is responsible for injury caused by a want of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property. The California Supreme Court set out the factors courts weigh when determining whether a duty of care exists in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, including the foreseeability of harm, the degree to which the defendant's conduct was connected to the plaintiff's injury, the moral blame attached to defendant's conduct, and the burden that imposing a duty would place on the defendant.

In a premises liability case, a property owner or occupier must inspect the premises, discover conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm, and either repair those conditions or provide adequate warning. Whether a dangerous condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have revealed it is a fact-specific question that often turns on surveillance footage, maintenance logs, incident reports, and employee testimony.

Santa Rosa's commercial corridors — Fourth Street, Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa Avenue, and the downtown core — along with Sonoma County's wine tasting rooms, vineyards, and agricultural properties generate a significant volume of premises liability claims. Wineries and tasting facilities present particular exposure: outdoor terrain including crush pads, barrel rooms, and vineyard pathways, combined with alcohol service and visitors unfamiliar with the property, creates foreseeable conditions for injury.

Claims involving property owned or controlled by the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, the California Department of Transportation, or any other public entity are governed by a separate framework. Government Code § 835 imposes liability on public entities for dangerous conditions of public property. The Government Claims Act separately requires that a written claim be presented to the responsible government entity within six months of the date of injury before a lawsuit can be filed. Missing that deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit. Tolling doctrines may apply depending on the facts — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your situation.

For claims against private parties, Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 provides a two-year statute of limitations running from the date of injury. Whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling requires individual analysis.

Slip and Fall Accidents

Slip and fall accidents are among the most common premises liability claims filed in Sonoma County Superior Court. They occur in grocery stores, restaurants, parking lots, wine tasting rooms, hotel lobbies, and on public sidewalks. The injury mechanism — an abrupt fall on a hard surface — frequently produces fractures, head injuries, torn ligaments, and spinal damage, particularly in older adults.

Establishing liability requires more than proof that the plaintiff fell. The plaintiff must show that a dangerous condition existed, that the owner or occupier knew or should have known of it, and that the owner failed to correct it or warn of it within a reasonable time. A wet floor without a warning sign, a cracked sidewalk, uneven flooring at a transition strip, or a freshly waxed surface without adequate notice can each support a claim — if the plaintiff can establish that the condition was known to the owner or had been present long enough to trigger a duty to act.

Defense counsel in slip and fall cases may argue comparative fault — that the plaintiff was not watching where they were walking, was wearing inappropriate footwear, or was distracted at the time of the fall. California's pure comparative fault system does not bar recovery on that basis; it reduces the plaintiff's recovery in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault. Comparative fault is an argument the defense must raise and support with evidence, not a self-executing bar to recovery.

Property owners may also argue the open and obvious doctrine — that the condition causing the fall was so apparent that a reasonable person would have seen and avoided it. California courts have not adopted a blanket rule that open and obvious conditions eliminate a duty to remedy. Whether the doctrine applies, and whether the distraction exception defeats it, is a fact-specific question.

Dog Bite Injuries

California imposes strict liability on dog owners for bites that occur in public places or while the victim is lawfully on private property. Civil Code § 3342(a) provides that the owner of any dog is liable for damages suffered by any person bitten by the dog, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. California has no one-bite rule. Viciousness of the dog and the owner's prior knowledge of it need not be alleged or proved.

Defenses a dog owner may raise include provocation — that the victim provoked the dog into biting — and trespass — that the victim was not lawfully on the property at the time. These are affirmative defenses the owner must plead and prove. Whether provocation occurred and what conduct constitutes provocation under the circumstances are questions of fact for the jury.

Dog bite injuries range from puncture wounds to severe lacerations requiring reconstructive surgery, nerve damage, infection, and lasting psychological trauma. Attacks on children, whose faces and upper bodies are at dog-bite level, can produce disfiguring injuries with lifelong consequences. Damages may include medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and disfigurement.

Negligent Security

A property owner's duty of reasonable care can extend to protecting lawful entrants from foreseeable criminal acts by third parties. This theory — negligent security, or negligent failure to protect — applies to commercial properties, apartment complexes, parking structures, hotels, and other locations where the owner has reason to anticipate that visitors face a risk of criminal harm.

The California Supreme Court addressed the scope of this duty in Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, holding that the most important consideration in determining the extent of a landowner's duty to provide security is the foreseeability of third persons' criminal conduct, determined primarily by incidents of prior similar conduct on or near the property. When foreseeability is established, the question becomes whether the owner took reasonable precautions in response: adequate lighting, functioning security cameras, trained security personnel, controlled access, or other measures proportionate to the known risk.

Negligent security claims in Santa Rosa arise in parking structures in the downtown core, apartment complexes where management ignored prior incidents, commercial properties that failed to maintain adequate lighting on approach paths, and retail establishments with documented histories of theft or violence. These cases require careful investigation, including obtaining prior incident reports, reviewing security contractor records, and consulting security industry experts.

Swimming Pool Accidents

Swimming pools are among the most dangerous conditions a residential property can present, particularly for young children who may not appreciate the hazard. Property owners who maintain pools owe a duty of reasonable care under Civil Code § 1714 to lawful entrants — which includes maintaining safe pool decking, functioning drain covers, adequate depth markings, and secure barriers against unauthorized access.

For trespassing children, California common law has long recognized the attractive nuisance doctrine: a landowner may be liable for physical harm to a trespassing child caused by an artificial condition on the land if the owner knew or had reason to know that children were likely to trespass in that location, the condition presented an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury, the children would not be expected to appreciate that risk, and the burden of eliminating the danger was slight compared to the risk it created. Whether these elements are satisfied is a fact-specific question.

Drowning and near-drowning cases frequently involve multiple potentially liable parties: the pool owner, the maintenance company that serviced faulty equipment, the manufacturer of a defective drain cover or pump, or a homeowners association that failed to maintain common-area pool barriers. Investigating all possible sources of liability is essential before any claim is resolved.

A defense that property owners — including agricultural landowners in Sonoma County — may assert is recreational use immunity under Civil Code § 846, which limits a landowner's duty of care to persons who enter the property for recreational purposes without paying consideration. The immunity does not apply where the owner willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a known dangerous condition. Whether this immunity applies, and whether an exception defeats it, requires fact-specific legal analysis.

Related Pages

• Santa Rosa Personal Injury Attorney
• Santa Rosa Car Accident Attorney
• Santa Rosa Pedestrian Accident Attorney
• Santa Rosa Wrongful Death Attorney
• Santa Rosa Wildfire Lawyer
• Santa Rosa Aviation Accident Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles premises liability cases throughout Santa Rosa and Sonoma 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.