You
What is California premises liability?
S
Premises liability is the area of California negligence law that holds property owners and possessors responsible for injuries on their land. It is built on Civ. Code § 1714's general duty of care, refined by Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, which abolished the old common-law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers in favor of a multi-factor balancing test that asks whether the defendant exercised reasonable care under all the circumstances. Common premises-liability cases include slip-and-fall, trip-and-fall, dog bites, swimming-pool injuries, falling-object injuries, fires, electrical hazards, and negligent security on commercial property.
You
What are the Rowland v. Christian factors?
S
Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 sets out the multi-factor test California courts use to decide whether a property owner owed and breached a duty of care: (1) foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (3) closeness of the connection between defendant's conduct and the injury, (4) moral blame attached to the conduct, (5) policy of preventing future harm, (6) burden on the defendant and the community of imposing a duty, and (7) availability and cost of insurance. The factors apply to most premises cases and are how California courts actually decide duty-breach questions.
You
How does California dog-bite law work?
S
Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 imposes strict liability on dog owners for bites in public places or while the bite victim is lawfully on private property (including the owner's property). California does not have a "one bite rule." The owner is liable regardless of whether the dog has bitten before and regardless of whether the owner knew the dog was dangerous. The strict-liability framework applies to bites; non-bite injuries (a dog knocking someone down) fall under general negligence under Civ. Code § 1714. Renters insurance and homeowners insurance usually cover dog-bite liability with policy limits in the $100,000 to $300,000 range.
You
What is the statute of limitations for premises liability?
S
CCP § 335.1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for premises-liability cases, running from the date of injury. Government-owned property triggers the Gov. Code § 911.2 six-month written-claim presentation requirement (city sidewalk, state highway, public school, transit district). Missing the government-claim deadline almost always bars the case, with very narrow late-claim relief. Minors generally toll until age 18 under CCP § 352. The memo runs the calendar math first because the wrong calendar kills the case.
You
What is negligent security?
S
Negligent security is a sub-category of premises liability where the property owner failed to provide reasonable security measures, leading to a foreseeable third-party criminal act (assault, robbery, sexual assault, shooting) that injured a tenant, guest, or invitee. The leading California case is Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, which set out the foreseeability framework: prior similar incidents on or near the property typically establish foreseeability and trigger a duty to provide reasonable security. Common defendants are apartment complexes, hotels, parking lots, shopping centers, and bars.
You
What in the $349 memo versus the $575 demand letter?
S
The $349 memo is a written legal evaluation: it applies the Rowland factors to your fact pattern, calendars the CCP § 335.1 SOL (or Gov. Code § 911.2 government-claim deadline), assesses likely defenses (comparative fault, open-and-obvious, assumption of risk), and gives a damages framework and rough settlement valuation. The $575 demand letter goes to the property owner's insurer with the legal theory laid out and a specific settlement demand on attorney letterhead. The right product depends on case posture: if you have not yet contacted the carrier, the demand letter is usually the right next move. If you need to know whether the case has legs first, the memo is the right starting point.
You
What about open-and-obvious hazards?
S
California recognizes the open-and-obvious doctrine but has narrowed it significantly. Under Kentucky Fried Chicken of California v. Superior Court (1997) 14 Cal.4th 814 and follow-up cases, a property owner can argue that a hazard was so obvious that the plaintiff should have avoided it, which can defeat the duty element. But the doctrine is not absolute: if the property owner anticipated that the plaintiff might encounter the hazard despite its obviousness (because of distraction, necessity, or because there is no reasonable alternative path), the duty remains. The memo addresses whether open-and-obvious is likely to be raised and how strong the defense is on your facts.
You
What is comparative fault under Prop. 51?
S
California follows pure comparative fault, meaning the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but is not barred even at high percentages. Proposition 51 (Civ. Code § 1431.2) layered on non-economic-damages proportionality: each defendant pays only their proportionate share of pain and suffering. Common premises defenses argue plaintiff was distracted, intoxicated, wearing inappropriate footwear, or otherwise contributed to the fall. The memo addresses likely fault-allocation arguments and how they affect case math.
You
Do you handle property-owner-side defense?
S
Most of my premises-liability work is plaintiff-side because Civ. Code § 1714 and the Rowland factors are how an injured person gets to recovery. I do occasionally write defense memos for property owners (or their insurers when the carrier wants outside counsel for a position memo) on whether liability is realistic and how to frame the defense. If you are a property owner with notice of a claim, email me the file and I will tell you whether the defense memo is the right fit before quoting.
You
When should I call a contingency PI firm instead?
S
If your premises-liability case has significant medical bills (over $25,000), lost wages, and a clear liability theory, a contingency-fee plaintiff-side PI firm is the right home for the case. They take it on contingency, absorb the expert costs, and run the litigation. The memo I write becomes their intake document. For smaller cases that contingency firms decline (typical floor around $15,000 settlement value), I can draft the $575 attorney demand letter directly and the negotiation runs from there. The intake conversation determines which path fits the facts.