📋 Overview

You've received a demand letter claiming someone was injured on your property due to a dangerous condition. As a property owner in California, you have a duty to maintain your premises in a reasonably safe condition. However, you're not an insurer of visitor safety - claimants must prove specific elements.

⚠ Notify Your Insurer

If you have general liability or homeowner's insurance, forward this demand immediately.

🕒 Preserve Evidence

Photos, maintenance records, incident reports, and surveillance footage are critical.

💰 Knowledge Is Key

The claimant must prove you knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.

Types of Premises Liability Claims

  • Slip and fall - Wet floors, uneven surfaces, debris
  • Trip and fall - Broken stairs, torn carpet, obstructions
  • Inadequate security - Criminal assault due to poor lighting or lack of security
  • Structural defects - Collapsed railings, falling objects
  • Swimming pool accidents - Lack of barriers, inadequate supervision
$450
Professional Response Letter

Liability analysis, evidence review, and formal response on attorney letterhead.

Schedule Review

🔍 Claim Elements

The claimant must prove ALL of these elements to prevail. Any weakness is a defense opportunity.

Required Proof (Rowland v. Christian)

Element Claimant Must Prove Your Defense Focus
Duty You owed duty of care based on visitor status Rarely disputed for business visitors
Dangerous Condition Condition created unreasonable risk of harm Was condition actually dangerous?
Notice You knew or should have known of condition Often best defense
Causation Condition caused the injury Challenge if unclear how injury occurred
Damages Actual harm resulted Focus on mitigation/causation

💡 The "Mode of Operation" Exception

For self-service businesses (grocery stores, etc.), if hazards are foreseeable as part of operations (dropped produce, spilled samples), notice may be imputed. But you can still show reasonable inspection routines.

🛡 Your Defenses

Common defenses to premises liability claims.

Lack of Notice (Ortega v. Kmart)

You had no actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. The condition either didn't exist long enough for you to discover it, or you had reasonable inspection procedures.

When to use: No prior complaints, regular inspections documented, condition appeared suddenly.

Open and Obvious Condition

The hazard was so obvious that any reasonable person would have seen and avoided it. This reduces or eliminates duty to warn.

When to use: Bright daylight, clear sightlines, common hazard like stairs.

Comparative Negligence

The claimant's own negligence contributed to the injury - distracted walking, ignoring warnings, wearing inappropriate footwear, intoxication.

When to use: Evidence claimant wasn't paying attention or ignored warnings.

No Dangerous Condition Existed

The alleged condition wasn't actually unreasonably dangerous. Minor surface irregularities, slight level changes, or conditions within normal expectations aren't actionable.

When to use: Condition was trivial, normal wear, or expected for location.

Assumption of Risk

The claimant voluntarily encountered a known risk. Primary assumption of risk (inherent risks) bars recovery; secondary reduces it.

When to use: Recreational activities, signed waivers, obvious activity risks.

🚨 Weak Defenses to Avoid

  • "No one else ever complained" - Doesn't prove safe condition
  • "They should have been more careful" - Weak without specifics
  • "We had a sign" - Only helps if sign was visible and clear

📝 Sample Responses

Dispute - Lack of Notice
We are in receipt of your demand regarding the alleged incident at [PROPERTY] on [DATE]. We dispute liability for the following reasons: 1. We had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition. Our records show that the area was inspected [describe inspection schedule], with the last inspection occurring at [TIME]. 2. We received no prior complaints about this condition. 3. Your client has provided no evidence establishing how long the alleged condition existed before the incident. Under Ortega v. Kmart, constructive notice requires proof that the condition existed long enough to be discovered through reasonable inspection. No such evidence has been presented.
Dispute - Open and Obvious
We dispute the claim that we breached any duty of care. The alleged condition - [describe condition] - was open and obvious to anyone exercising reasonable care. The incident occurred during [daytime/well-lit conditions]. Photographs show the area was clearly visible with unobstructed sightlines. A property owner is not required to warn of hazards that would be obvious to a reasonable person. Furthermore, your client's own conduct contributed to this incident. [Describe - e.g., "was looking at phone," "wearing inappropriate footwear," etc.] Under comparative negligence principles, your client's recovery should be substantially reduced or eliminated.
Referral to Insurer
I have received your demand letter dated [DATE]. This matter has been referred to our liability insurance carrier: [INSURANCE COMPANY] Claim Number: [NUMBER] Claims Contact: [CONTACT INFO] Please direct all further correspondence to the above. We are not authorized to discuss settlement directly and make no admissions regarding this claim.

🚀 Next Steps

Step 1: Notify Insurer

Forward demand to your GL or homeowner's insurance immediately.

Step 2: Preserve Evidence

Locate and preserve incident reports, photos, surveillance, maintenance logs.

Step 3: Investigate

Interview staff, review inspection records, document current conditions.

Step 4: Respond

Coordinate response with insurer or respond directly if uninsured.

Need Professional Assistance?

Get expert help evaluating and responding to premises liability demands.

Schedule Consultation - $450

California Resources

  • Civil Code 1714: General duty of care
  • Rowland v. Christian (1968): Premises liability factors
  • Ortega v. Kmart (2001): Constructive notice requirements
  • CACI 1000-1012: Premises liability jury instructions