California applies a unified duty of care to all property owners and occupiers, regardless of the visitor's status. Understanding how California courts analyze slip and fall cases in stores and public places is essential to building effective demand letters.
California abolished the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser categories in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108. Instead, property owners owe a general duty of reasonable care to all persons on their property. Courts analyze duty using the Rowland factors:
Practice tip: In demand letters, frame your facts to highlight Rowland factors favorable to plaintiff: emphasize foreseeability (prior incidents, industry standards), moral blame (deliberate indifference), and policy (protecting the public).
To establish liability, plaintiff must prove:
Ownership, lease, or management control suffices
Failed to use reasonable care in maintaining property
Actual physical injury or property damage
Defendant's negligence proximately caused harm
In Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, California adopted the mode of operation rule. In self-service areas (produce sections, aisles with customer-handled goods), plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive notice if:
Once plaintiff establishes mode of operation applies, burden shifts to defendant to show reasonable inspection/maintenance procedures.
California follows pure comparative negligence (Prop 51). Plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but not barred entirely. Common comparative negligence defenses:
Statute of limitations: Two years from date of injury (CCP § 335.1). For minors, tolled until age 18, then two years to file.
The central dispute in most California store slip and fall cases is whether defendant had notice of the dangerous condition. Your demand letter must demonstrate actual notice, constructive notice, or that mode of operation eliminates the notice requirement.
Defendant had direct knowledge of the hazard. Strongest forms of proof:
Discovery tip: In demand letters, reference that you will subpoena incident logs, maintenance records, and video in litigation. This pressures defendant to evaluate actual notice evidence early.
Defendant should have known through reasonable inspection. California courts require proof the condition existed long enough that defendant should have discovered it. Evidence of constructive notice:
Debris tracked in, worn appearance, dried substance, footprints through spill, dirty mop water (indicates neglect)
Store's written policies vs. actual practice. If inspections every 30 minutes but hazard present for 2 hours = constructive notice
High-traffic areas require more frequent inspections. Entrance mats on rainy day = higher duty
Recurring hazard (leaky refrigerator case, torn floor mat) shows foreseeability
If mode of operation applies, you don't need to prove notice. Focus demand letter on these elements:
Strong mode of operation cases: Produce sections, bulk food aisles, refrigerated cases with condensation, self-serve beverage stations, checkout areas with bagging stations. Always invoke Ortega if applicable.
Even without notice issues, you can establish breach through:
Spoliation warning: In demand letter, demand preservation of surveillance video, inspection logs, and incident reports. California courts may issue adverse inference instruction if defendant destroys evidence (willful suppression doctrine).
An effective California premises liability demand letter combines legal analysis with persuasive narrative and comprehensive damages documentation.
Identify plaintiff, state injury and date, confirm you represent claimant. "This letter constitutes a formal demand for settlement of all claims arising from [Plaintiff's] slip and fall at [Store] on [Date]."
Narrative of what happened, where, when. Establish plaintiff's status (customer = invitee). Describe hazard in detail: "pool of clear liquid approximately 2 feet in diameter, no warning signs, no caution cones, located in main aisle 8 feet from entrance."
Apply California law:
Chronological treatment summary: ER visit, diagnostic imaging, orthopedic consultation, physical therapy, ongoing care. Attach: medical records, bills, imaging reports, doctor's narrative.
Itemize with backup:
Pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life. Use plaintiff's own words from declaration: "I can no longer play with my grandchildren, garden, or walk without severe pain." Reference daily activities plaintiff can no longer perform.
State total demand: "Plaintiff demands $[X] to resolve all claims." Give deadline (typically 30 days). "If we do not receive your response by [Date], I will file suit in [County] Superior Court and pursue full damages plus costs."
"This demand is made to facilitate settlement and does not waive any claims. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend damages if additional treatment is required. Defendant must preserve all evidence including video surveillance, inspection logs, and incident reports pursuant to California's spoliation doctrine."
Settlement posture: Initial demands typically value at 3-5x specials for soft tissue, higher for fractures/surgery. California has no cap on non-economic damages in slip-fall cases (Prop 51 applies only to non-economic in personal injury with multiple defendants).
Avoid: Don't overreach on liability if you lack notice evidence and mode of operation doesn't apply. Don't inflate damages with speculative future treatment. Don't threaten bad faith claims (not applicable to premises liability torts).
Proper service of your demand letter ensures it reaches the correct decision-makers and preserves your litigation rights.
Send to multiple parties in parallel:
Local manager at incident location. Preserves evidence, documents your claim early
Send via certified mail to corporate headquarters, Attn: General Counsel or Risk Management
California Secretary of State business search shows registered agent for service. Creates formal notice
If known from incident report, send copy to carrier. Triggers duty to investigate and evaluate
Research tip: California Secretary of State business entity search (bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov) reveals corporate structure, registered agent, and principal office address.
Franchise slip-falls create complex liability issues:
Strategy: Send demand to all three, preserving claims against each. Let them allocate fault among themselves.
Determine whether hazard was in:
Multiple defendants: Send demands to both tenant and landlord if liability is unclear. Joint and several liability under Prop 51 allows recovery of economic damages from any defendant, but non-economic damages limited to each defendant's proportionate share.
If slip-fall occurred on government property (public library, DMV office, city-owned facility):
Government claims procedure: Government claim is a statutory prerequisite, not a demand letter. It must use specific form and meet notice requirements. After rejection, your demand letter functions as settlement negotiation tool.
California slip and fall settlements depend on injury severity, liability strength, venue, and defendant's risk tolerance.
Soft tissue: $15K-$75K
Fractures: $50K-$300K+
Surgery: $100K-$500K+
Permanent disability: $250K-$1M+
Multiply by 2-5x for pain/suffering. Higher multipliers for objective injuries (fracture, surgery), lower for subjective (soft tissue)
Strong liability (actual notice, mode of operation) = higher settlement. Disputed notice or comparative negligence = discount
Urban California counties (LA, SF, Alameda) = higher verdicts. Conservative rural counties = lower settlement pressure
Certified mail to all parties. Give 30-day response deadline
Defendant acknowledges, requests additional info, or makes low-ball offer. Large retailers often deny liability initially to test your resolve
Exchange counteroffers, supplement with additional records. May involve phone calls with adjuster or defense counsel
If reasonable offer, execute settlement and release. If impasse, file complaint in Superior Court
Pre-lit settlements: Strong cases with clear liability and significant injury often settle within 60-90 days. Disputed liability or marginal injury may require filing suit to get reasonable offer.
All California slip-fall settlements require:
Liens: Failure to resolve Medicare or Medi-Cal liens before settlement can result in personal liability. Always verify lien status before finalizing settlement.
Consider litigation if:
I represent clients throughout California in premises liability claims against stores, supermarkets, shopping centers, and public places. My practice focuses on maximizing recovery through strategic demand letters and, when necessary, litigation.
I send spoliation letters within 48 hours demanding preservation of surveillance video, inspection logs, incident reports, and maintenance records. This prevents defendant from "losing" critical evidence and creates basis for adverse inference instruction if they destroy materials.
I investigate whether defendant had actual notice (prior complaints, employee knowledge) or constructive notice (age of hazard, inspection failures). If case falls within Ortega mode of operation rule, I eliminate the notice burden entirely by establishing self-service merchandising created the hazard.
I work with your treating physicians to obtain detailed narratives, causation opinions, and future treatment projections. For serious injuries, I retain expert physicians to provide independent medical examinations and life care planning to substantiate future damages.
I apply Rowland v. Christian factors to establish duty, analyze whether Ortega shifts the burden, and preemptively address comparative negligence defenses (open and obvious, distraction, footwear). My demand letters cite California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal precedent to demonstrate the strength of your legal position.
I draft comprehensive demand letters that combine legal analysis, persuasive narrative, and complete damages documentation. My demands target the appropriate defendants (store, franchisor, landlord, insurer) and emphasize litigation costs and venue risks to pressure settlement.
I negotiate directly with insurance adjusters and defense counsel, leveraging my knowledge of California premises liability law and local jury verdict data. If defendant makes unreasonable offers, I'm prepared to file suit and pursue full damages through trial.
Contingency fee structure: I handle slip and fall cases on contingency (typically 33.33% pre-litigation, 40% if suit filed). You pay nothing unless I recover compensation for you. Costs (filing fees, expert fees, deposition costs) are advanced and reimbursed from settlement.
I handle premises liability cases throughout California, including:
High verdict jurisdiction; strong plaintiff verdicts in slip-fall cases with clear liability
San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo counties. Tech-savvy juries expect detailed evidence
Moderate-to-conservative jury pool; strong cases settle well, marginal cases face scrutiny
Military-influenced jury pool; objective medical evidence (imaging, surgery) critical
I offer paid case evaluations for California slip and fall claims. I'll review your incident details, analyze liability under California law, and advise whether you have a viable claim.
Contact: Email owner@terms.law or use the calendar above to schedule a consultation. All consultations are confidential.
Traditional common law divided visitors into invitees (owed highest duty), licensees (moderate duty), and trespassers (minimal duty). California abolished these categories in Rowland v. Christian (1968), holding that all property owners owe a general duty of reasonable care to all persons on their property, regardless of visitor status. Courts now analyze duty using the seven Rowland factors (foreseeability, certainty, closeness, moral blame, policy, burden, insurance).
Ortega v. Kmart applies when: (1) store chose self-service merchandising; (2) this method created a foreseeable risk; and (3) the dangerous condition was related to that method. Common examples: produce sections (customers handle fruit/vegetables), bulk food aisles, refrigerated cases with condensation, self-serve beverage stations. If mode of operation applies, plaintiff doesn't need to prove actual or constructive notice—burden shifts to defendant to show reasonable inspection procedures.
Constructive notice requires proof the hazard existed long enough that defendant should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. Look for: (1) age indicators (dried substance, debris tracked in, worn appearance); (2) defendant's inspection policies vs. actual practice (claim inspections every 30 minutes but hazard present for hours); (3) location (high-traffic areas require more frequent inspections); (4) pattern evidence (recurring problem like leaky refrigerator case). Your demand letter should request defendant's inspection logs to compare policy against practice.
No. In California, an open and obvious hazard may reduce the duty owed, but doesn't automatically eliminate liability. Courts consider whether plaintiff had legitimate reason to be distracted (talking to store employee, reading product label, pushing cart) or whether the hazard was truly avoidable. Additionally, even obvious hazards may impose duty if defendant should have anticipated harm (e.g., wet floor at entrance on rainy day). California's pure comparative negligence means even if you were partially at fault for not seeing an obvious hazard, you can still recover reduced damages.
Two years from the date of injury (CCP § 335.1). For minors, the statute is tolled until age 18, then two years to file. If the slip-fall occurred on government property, you must file a government tort claim within 6 months (Gov Code § 911.2) before you can sue—this is a strict prerequisite. Missing these deadlines permanently bars your claim, so consult an attorney promptly after your injury.
General waivers for entering a store are rarely enforceable for slip-and-fall injuries. California public policy limits waivers of liability for ordinary negligence in consumer contexts. Waivers may be enforceable for inherently risky activities (rock climbing gyms, ski resorts), but not for routine shopping. If defendant claims you signed a release, consult an attorney—these are heavily scrutinized and often invalidated.
Initial offers from stores or insurers are typically low-ball and designed to close the claim cheaply before you understand the full extent of your injuries and damages. Don't accept any offer until: (1) you've completed medical treatment or know the full scope of future care needed; (2) you've documented all economic damages (medical bills, lost wages); (3) you've consulted an attorney to evaluate whether the offer is reasonable. Most stores have substantial liability coverage and can pay far more than initial offers suggest.
This may contribute to comparative negligence, but doesn't bar recovery under California's pure comparative fault system. Your damages would be reduced by your percentage of fault. Additionally, if you had a legitimate reason to be distracted (checking shopping list, texting store employee for product location), this may mitigate the comparative negligence finding. An attorney can argue that even distracted customers are entitled to reasonably safe premises, and defendant's negligence (failing to clean spill, inadequate inspection) was the primary cause of your fall.