California slip and fall law: When you're injured in a slip, trip, or fall at a California store, restaurant, mall, or other public property, the property owner or business operator may be liable under California premises liability law. California applies a general duty of reasonable care to all property owners, regardless of traditional visitor classifications.
Successful California slip and fall claims require proving the owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition through reasonable inspections. This guide covers California-specific duty frameworks, constructive notice standards, how to draft California demand letters, and settlement realities in California venues.
I handle California slip and fall demand letters personally. This page focuses on California law, including Civil Code § 1714, Rowland v. Christian, and the Ortega inspection-failure doctrine that governs most retail and restaurant fall cases.
California premises liability law differs significantly from other states. In 1968, the California Supreme Court abolished the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser framework and replaced it with a general duty of reasonable care.
In Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, the California Supreme Court held that property owners owe a general duty of reasonable care to all persons on their property, regardless of status. Instead of rigid categories, California courts analyze duty based on:
California Civil Code § 1714(a) states: "Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person."
This statute establishes the baseline duty for all California premises liability claims, including slip and fall cases in stores, restaurants, malls, parking lots, and public buildings.
California jury trials use CACI (California Civil Jury Instructions) for premises liability claims:
When drafting your demand letter, reference these instructions to show how California juries will evaluate your case if it goes to trial.
The most important California premises liability case for slip and fall claims is Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200. This case defines how California plaintiffs prove constructive notice in retail settings.
Ortega established that a store can be liable for slip and fall injuries based on circumstantial evidence that it failed to conduct reasonable inspections—even if the plaintiff cannot prove exactly how long the hazard existed.
In California slip and fall demand letters, explicitly reference Ortega and argue:
Like other states, California requires proof of notice. But Ortega makes constructive notice easier to establish:
| Notice Type | How to Prove in California |
|---|---|
| Actual notice | Employee created hazard, saw hazard, or was told about it. Surveillance video, witness testimony, incident reports. |
| Constructive notice | Under Ortega, show store failed to implement reasonable inspection procedures. Lack of sweep logs, inadequate inspection frequency, or no employee presence in area. |
Your California demand letter should explicitly demand preservation and production of:
If your slip and fall occurred on government property (city sidewalk, county building, state park, transit station, public school, courthouse), you must comply with California's Government Claims Act before filing a lawsuit.
California Government Code §§ 911.2 and 945.6 require you to file a written claim with the government entity within 6 months of the injury. This is a strict deadline; missing it permanently bars your claim.
I personally draft and negotiate California slip and fall demand letters for clients injured at stores, restaurants, malls, parking lots, and public property throughout California. These cases require detailed knowledge of California premises liability law, Ortega constructive notice arguments, and California settlement dynamics.
Under Ortega v. Kmart, you don't need to prove exactly how long the hazard existed. Instead, you can establish constructive notice by showing the store failed to implement reasonable inspection procedures.
How to use Ortega:
If the store cannot show it had and followed reasonable inspection policies, a California jury may infer the hazard was present long enough to be discovered.
Private property: 2 years from the date of your fall (Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1).
Government property: You must file a Government Claim with the government entity within 6 months of your fall (Government Code §§ 911.2, 945.6). After your claim is denied, you have 6 months to file a lawsuit.
Critical difference: The 6-month Government Claims Act deadline applies to any fall on property owned or maintained by a city, county, state agency, school district, transit authority, or other government entity. Missing this deadline permanently bars your claim.
If you're unsure whether the property is government-owned, consult an attorney immediately to preserve your rights.
California's Howell v. Hamilton Meats rule limits your economic damages to the amounts actually paid or incurred for medical treatment, not the full billed charges.
Example: Hospital bills $50,000 for your treatment. Your health insurance pays $12,000 as the contracted rate. Under Howell, you can recover $12,000 in economic damages, not the full $50,000 billed amount.
Why this matters in demand letters:
Yes. California applies pure comparative negligence, which reduces your recovery by your percentage of fault but does not bar recovery entirely.
How it works: If a jury finds you 30% at fault (e.g., you were looking at your phone when you fell), your damages are reduced by 30%. If your damages are $100,000, you recover $70,000.
Common comparative fault arguments:
Defense strategies: Anticipate these arguments in your demand letter and rebut them (hazard was not obvious, you were engaged in reasonable activity like reading product labels, store's failure to inspect was primary cause).
California venues vary significantly in their friendliness to slip and fall plaintiffs. Urban, plaintiff-friendly counties tend to produce higher verdicts and settlements.
Plaintiff-friendly venues:
Defense-friendly venues:
California adjusters evaluate venue when setting settlement authority. A case in Los Angeles or San Francisco will settle for significantly more than the same case in Fresno or Riverside.
Generally, no. California follows the "American rule" that each party pays their own attorney fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.
Exceptions:
Most California slip and fall cases are handled on contingency: attorney receives a percentage of recovery (typically 33%-40%), and you pay nothing unless you win.