Premises Liability in California

What Is Premises Liability?

The elements of a premises liability and negligence cause of action are the same: duty, breach, causation and damages. Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998. “The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619; Annocki v. Peterson Ent., LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.

While an owner of premises is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, the owner still owes them a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.

To establish liability for negligence, “[t]here must be some evidence... to support the conclusion that the condition had existed long enough for the proprietor, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have discovered and remedied it.” Girvetz v. Boys’ Market (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827, 829; Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1206 (the owner must have had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or have had the ability, through the exercise of ordinary care, to discover it, and sufficient time to correct it). However, “(t]he plaintiff need not show actual knowledge where evidence suggests that the dangerous condition was present for a sufficient period of time to charge the owner with constructive knowledge of its existence.” Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1206.

Typically, the question of whether a condition existed so long as to be discoverable within a reasonable time is a question of fact to be decided by the jury. Hatfield v. Levy Bros. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798, 807; Tuttle v. Crawford (1936) 8 Cal.2d 126, 130; Rothschild v. Fourth & Market St. Realty Co. (1934) 139 Cal.App. 625, 627. If there is no substantial evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the condition existed for a sufficient period of time to charge the defendant with constructive notice of its presence and to remedy the condition, a defendant may be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Perez v. Ow (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 559, 562.

Reasonable Care Standard

A person who owns/leases/occupies/controls property is negligent if he or she fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 431. A person who owns/leases/occupies/controls property must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or give adequate warning of anything that could be reasonably expected to harm others. Id. In deciding whether defendant(s) used reasonable care, the court considers, among other factors, the following:

  1. The location of the property;
  2. The likelihood that someone would come on to the property in the same manner as the plaintiff did;
  3. The likelihood of harm;
  4. The probable seriousness of such harm;
  5. Whether the defendant knew or should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm;
  6. The difficulty of protecting against the risk of such harm;
  7. The extent of defendant’s control over the condition that created the risk of harm; and
  8. Other relevant factor(s).

See Campbell v. Ford Motor Co., 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 (2012).

Rulings for Premises Liability in California

On that form, she has checked the boxes for general negligence and for premises liability. Attached to that form she has included attachments for her specific claims, which, again, consist of general negligence and premises liability. On the attachment form for premises liability, Plaintiff checks boxes for three variations of premises liability: (1) negligence, (2) willful failure to warn, and (3) dangerous condition of public property. Defendant demurs to the first cause of action for general negligence.

  • Name

    CHARLOTTE MAY VS CITY OF ENCINITAS

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00018885-CU-PO-NC

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. 2.

  • Name

    VERONICA SOLEIMANI VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV14606

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

Plaintiff’s complaint includes causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. 2.

  • Name

    (NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

  • Case No.

    B19STCV14606

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

[FAC @ ¶ Prem.L-2] Further, while plaintiff acknowledges in opposition to the demurrer that Allergan was in fact a lessee of the facility, which had sub-leased the facility to defendant Apeel only weeks before the incident, possession and control of the premises can give rise to premises liability, and premises liability is not limited to outright ownership of dangerous premises. The allegations are sufficient to state a premises liability cause of action against Allergan.

  • Name

    RYAN KAUFMAN VS APEEL TECHNOLOGY INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV03060

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2019

“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. Premises liability ‘ “is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises”.) (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108; CACI 1000.)

  • Name

    NGUYEN V. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01053329

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2019

While the “premises liability” box is checked under the causes of action in the First Amended Complaint (see id. at p. 3), the Court notes this appears to be in error as no premises liability cause of action is attached. The premises liability cause of action is alleged in the original complaint, which was superseded as a pleading when the First Amended Complaint was filed. (See Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 884.)

  • Name

    DOMINGUEZ, DONNA VS UNITED SUPER CLEANERS INC

  • Case No.

    15K08376

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2016

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court notes that Defendant demurred to the second cause of action for premises liability (count one negligence) and the second cause of action for premises liability (count two willful failure to warn). The Courts analysis only discussed premises liability (count one negligence) despite Defendant arguing that Plaintiff did not allege facts for premises liability under count two (willful failure to warn).

  • Name

    FIDELINA DIAZ-ORELLANA VS FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    23GDCV00393

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On May 7, 2018, Plaintiff Silva Ghazarian filed a Complaint against Defendant Walmart, Inc., alleging premises liability and general negligence. Proof of service was filed on October 5, 2018. As part of Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability, she alleged 3 counts - Negligence, Willful Failure to Warn, and Dangerous Condition of a Public Property.

  • Name

    SILVA GHAZARIAN VS WALMART INC

  • Case No.

    BC705330

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to premises liability, Courts have repeatedly held that the Exclusive Remedy Rule bars negligence claims (including premises liability claims) of employees who suffer personal injuries and emotional distress due to violence in the workplace. (See Arendell v. Auto Parts Club, Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1261. Plaintiff's premises liability cause of action additionally fails because not facts are alleged that Spectrum owned, leased, controlled, or occupied the property where the incident occurred.

  • Name

    CONNOLLY VS DEL SOL LIONS FOUNDATION

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00046828-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

As to premises liability, Courts have repeatedly held that the Exclusive Remedy Rule bars negligence claims (including premises liability claims) of employees who suffer personal injuries and emotional distress due to violence in the workplace. (See Arendell v. Auto Parts Club, Inc. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1261. Plaintiff's premises liability cause of action additionally fails because not facts are alleged that Spectrum owned, leased, controlled, or occupied the property where the incident occurred.

  • Name

    CONNOLLY VS DEL SOL LIONS FOUNDATION

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00046828-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

As noted above, general negligence and premises liability are both forms of negligence. (Brooks, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at 1619 [premises liability is a form of negligence].) Here, the negligence cause of action and the premises liability theory appear to be based on the same exact negligent act—the slip and fall incident. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-15.) Thus, if the Complaint were to state the theories as separate causes of action, those causes would be duplicative.

  • Name

    SVETLANA GUREVICH VS TRADER JOE'S COMPANY

  • Case No.

    BC701843

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2018

Premises liability is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises. ( Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158, [quotation marks omitted].) In her opposition, Plaintiff agrees that the cause of action for Premises Liability is improperly stated against Kone.

  • Name

    AMANDA CHAPPELL VS PUBLIC STORAGE

  • Case No.

    22BBCV00830

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On June 25, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to strike Count One – Negligence from the premises liability cause of action of the complaint and Count Two – Willful Failure to Warn from the premises liability cause of action of the complaint. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to strike. Trial is set for June 26, 2020.

  • Name

    MANUEL AURELIO OCHOA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

  • Case No.

    18STCV09911

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2019

Citys demurrer is sustained as to Plaintiffs causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and willful failure to warn.

  • Name

    APRIL ANICE MAYNARD VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV32307

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2022

Second Cause of Action, Premises Liability Plaintiff’s judicial council form complaint includes an attachment for premises liability, and Plaintiff indicates she is suing LACMTA for (a) count one – negligence and (b) count three – dangerous condition of public property. As noted above, LACMTA cannot be sued for general negligence. Thus, to the extent this is Plaintiff’s theory, it is subject to demurrer. Pursuant to Lopez v. S. Cal.

  • Name

    VALERIE JONES VS METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (MTA), ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV24056

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

The unopposed demurrer to first amended complaint ("FAC"), filed by defendant La Mesa Cardiac, is sustained without leave to amend as to the 1st cause of action for premises liability and with 20 days leave to amend the 2nd cause of action for general negligence. By failing to oppose the demurrer, plaintiff impliedly concedes she has not alleged a claim. The Court notes that plaintiff sought to dismiss her 1st cause of action for premises liability. ROA # 52.

  • Name

    PITMAN VS LA MESA CARDIAC CENTER

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00024757-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2017

Case Number: 23AVCV01005 Hearing Date: December 19, 2023 Dept: A14 Background This is a premises liability action.

  • Name

    CRUZ GUERRA, ET AL. VS CITY OF PALMDALE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23AVCV01005

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

s demurrer to the premises liability count is sustained, with leave to amend. Although the 2d cause of action for premises liability is based on negligence, more must be pled to state a cause of action based on this tort.

  • Name

    RACHEL VANSCHAIK VS. FOREST CITY ENTERPRISES INC

  • Case No.

    56-2011-00400950-CU-PO-SIM

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2012

On July 11, 2021, Plaintiff Julian Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) premises liability, (2) negligence, and (3) statutory liability. Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action of Premises liability against Defendant Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. (“Defendant”). Trial is set for July 11, 2022 .

  • Name

    JULIAN CHAVEZ VS HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV00998

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. ( McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.)

  • Name

    GRACE IVERSON VS ROBERT AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV26858

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

This demurrer does not account for the first count of premises liability. As such, the demurrer is OVERRULED. Motion to Strike Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second count of premises liability for a failure to warn pursuant to Civil Code section 846 should be stricken because Plaintiff has not alleged involvement in a recreational purpose. (Motion to Strike, p. 4:2-4:20.) The Court agrees. A recreational purpose is expressly defined in Civil Code section 846.

  • Name

    PAOLA NUNEZ VS WEST COAST UNIVERSITY, INC.,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV08612

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

Thus, the demurrer to the premises liability cause of action is SUSTAINED as duplicative. The Court is inclined to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend unless Plaintiff can make an offer of proof at the hearing on how the premises liability claim can be amended to sufficiently state a claim. Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Name

    SEVAG SALIBIAN ET AL VS BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC685757

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2018

Defendant moves to strike plaintiff third cause of action for premises liability on the ground that she did not have leave to add a new cause of action. The motion is denied. Plaintiff’s prior pleading asserted only a general negligence cause of action against this defendant, though articulating a premises-liability rationale for it. The Court commented then that the elements of general negligence and premises liability are essentially the same.

  • Name

    SOLORIO VS. WILSON & KRAZTER

  • Case No.

    MSC19-01329

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

amended complaint’s third cause of action for premises liability as it relates to demurring defendants Rebecca Devlin and Randall Rogers.

  • Name

    DAVID FANKHAUSER VS. REBECCA DEVLIN

  • Case No.

    21CECG00362

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Defendant demurs to the Second Cause of Action: Premises Liability on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for premises liability and that the second cause of action is duplicative of the first cause of action for negligence. The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 994, 998.)

  • Name

    TERRY MARTIN VS BURKE WILLIAMS INC

  • Case No.

    BC717687

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2018

The original Complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and failure to warn, while the FAC includes claims only for negligence and premises liability.

  • Name

    ELIZABETH VALENZUELA VS EQUINOX HOLDING, INC.

  • Case No.

    20STCV14205

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TENTATIVE RULING FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PREMISES LIABILITY The Court will hear argument. It appears that Plaintiff has alleged premises liability; however, based on the Complaint and the Opposition, it is unclear if Plaintiff is attempting to establish liability under common law premises liability, under Civil Code § 846, or § 1714(a). Defendant argues that the first cause of action for premises liability is duplicative of the second cause of action for general negligence.

  • Name

    ALLYSON OKOJIE VS TJX, COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    24GDCV00098

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff has alleged facts necessary to sustain a cause of action for premises liability. The MJOP is denied.

  • Name

    HANLEY VS. BANK OF AMERICA

  • Case No.

    MSC16-00323

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2017

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Plaintiffs premises liability claim contains the identical allegations as her negligence claim. ( Compare FAC ¶¶ 25-3 3 with ¶¶ 3 5 - 42 .) Plaintiff's premises liability claim adds nothing of value to the Complaint because the Complaint does not provide any specific facts to demonstrate the manner in which the premises liability claim differs from Plaintiff's negligence claim .

  • Name

    LINDA GHERMEZIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23SMCV02696

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court’s concern is the fact that the parties do not discuss the distinction between the premises liability cause of action and the negligence cause of action. The premises liability cause of action is inadequately pled against Ralphs because Ralphs did not own, possess, or control the adjacent public sidewalk. The negligence cause of action, however, seems adequately pled.

  • Name

    RONI SUE HOLLOWAY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV48569

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

While the foregoing is the order of the causes of action in the caption of the complaint, the body of the complaint lists them as premises liability, negligence, IIED, false imprisonment, and NIED. The Court will use the numbers of the causes of action in the body of the complaint, not the caption of the complaint, in this ruling. At this time, Golden State demurs to the first cause of action for premises liability and fifth cause of action for NIED only.

  • Name

    ALEXANDER HOENIGMANN VS 2308 SCHADER DRIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSO

  • Case No.

    BC621580

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2016

As to the 6th Cause of Action for Premises liability, a cause of action for general negligence and one for premises liability are similar. Nevertheless, the allegations in the First Amended Complaint are different and separate from those in the 6th and 7th causes of action.

  • Name

    GONZALEZ VS. ALWEN

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00938624-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2018

With regard to Plaintiff’s claim for Premises Liability, Plaintiff alleges that Plaintiff fell and hit his head on an unknown object inside the classroom. (Complaint, p. 5, Cause of Action-Premises Liability.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant, inter alia, negligently owned and maintained the premises which caused Plaintiff’s injuries. (Ibid.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s causes of action for General Negligence and Premises Liability state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Name

    JACOB ABRAHAM VS PINECREST SCHOOLS INC

  • Case No.

    BC609504

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2016

The Court struck (1) Count 1Negligence in the first cause of action for premises liability, (2) Count 2Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846] in the first cause of action for premises liability, and (3) the second cause of action for negligence. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days leave to amend. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

  • Name

    ALEN VARTANIAN VS CITY OF GLENDALE

  • Case No.

    22STCV00603

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Consistent with Parth s guidance, the Court reaches the same conclusion: the third cause of action for Negligence-Premises Liability is duplicative of the second cause of action for Negligence.

  • Name

    LAKHBIR KAUR DHATT VS UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV17747

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Villaroman's unopposed Demurrer as to the Second Cause of Action for Premises liability in Plaintiff Stafford J. Spicer's First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. The court finds this cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim for premises liability. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) As Plaintiff has not demonstrated the defect in the pleading can be cured, the court does not grant leave to amend.

  • Name

    STAFFORD J SPICER VS. G VILLAROMAN

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00008550-CU-PN-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action is for Premises Liability. Plaintiffs assert they have stated a valid claim for premises liability against Defendant Jose Castro because he “controlled” the real property. Plaintiffs allege the real property belongs to Defendant Ambrosio Castro (FAC paragraph 8) and that Defendant Jose Castro was the ranch manager (FAC paragraph 13). Plaintiffs assert one does not have to own property be in control for purposes of a premises liability action. Plaintiffs rely on Alcaraz v.

  • Name

    LOPEZ V. CASTRO

  • Case No.

    PCU 269991

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

Though Plaintiff’s injury may be predicated on some of the same general set of facts and injury, the allegation that Plaintiff fell because Defendant failed to assist Plaintiff does not put Defendant on notice to defend against a claim for Premises Liability based on a defect on the property. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s nonmedical employees’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s predisposition to fall supports Plaintiff’s claim for Premises Liability.

  • Name

    DIANE GERALD VS KENITH K PARESA M D ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC550422

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2016

But plaintiff fails to submit any legal authority that the agent of a property owner is liable for premises liability. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained, with leave to amend.

  • Name

    BURMAN VS. TOWN OF DANVILLE

  • Case No.

    MSC19-01678

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

  • Judge

    Steve K. Austin

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

The form complaint used for this cause of action was the one for premises liability. Plaintiff checked boxes for negligence and willful failure to warn. The individual form causes of action are meant to focus an attorney's attention on that particular cause of action and to get the attorney to articulate why he is stating a cause of action for premises liability as opposed to just simply negligence. There is no incorporation by reference.

  • Name

    JUSTIN MARKOWITZ VS. RORY KRAMER

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00452007-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2014

The Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the premises liability cause of action as duplicative. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on August 30, 2019. Defendant once again demur to the cause of action for premises liability on the grounds that it is duplicative. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face. (City of Atascadero v.

  • Name

    MARIA DE JESUS SANDOVAL VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION , ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV10715

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

Her claim and theory of liability remain the same -- premises liability. Whether the accident took place at one address in Santa Ana under the City’s control or another seems to make no legal difference. What matters is whether the elements of the tort can or cannot be proven for each address. Defendants make no showing, as a matter of law, that it is impossible for Plaintiff to establish the elements of her premises liability claim at the “new” address. No Opposition has been filed.

  • Name

    SANCHEZ VS CITY OF SANTA ANA

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00815577-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2017

Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence and premises liability. Defendant demurs to the 1st cause of action for negligence because it arises from the same facts alleged in the premises liability action, and is therefore duplicative.

  • Name

    ARACELI HERNANDEZ VS GGP NORTHRIDGE FASHION CENTER, LP., A BUSINESS ENTITY

  • Case No.

    20STCV14779

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

Premises liability is comprised of the same elements as negligence. The fact that there are different jury instructions for each cause of action does not mean that there are different causes of action. Plaintiff can request a premises liability instruction on a negligence cause of action, or vice-versa. The causes of action are duplicative.

  • Name

    HORNER VS CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING & SPORTS LLC

  • Case No.

    RIC1905798

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

Further, the court in Moore was determining the sufficiency of allegations for distinct causes of action then the claims here for negligence and premises liability. Accordingly, the Court does not find Moore to be controlling. Therefore, for pleading purposes, the Court finds Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to constitute causes of action for general negligence and premises liability. B.

  • Name

    MICHAEL MCCARTHY VS CENTURY CITY MALL, LLC

  • Case No.

    22STCV08173

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

General Negligence and Premises Liability The elements of a cause of action for negligence are (1) the existence of a legal duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) injury proximately caused by the breach. (McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.) “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)

  • Name

    FANT, ALFRED VS. PACIFIC HOMEWORKS, INC.

  • Case No.

    12CT3511

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court's tentative ruling is to: (i) Sustain, with leave to amend, Defendant American Golf Corporation's demurrer to the second cause of action for premises liability in Plaintiffs Parvis and Zahra Ojagh's 1st Amended Complaint, solely on the grounds that (a) Plaintiffs' allegations indicate that Plaintiffs seek to impose premises liability on Defendant under a theory that the sauna and its controls constituted a dangerous condition on Defendant's premise (see 1st Amended Complaint, ¶Prem.L-1, p. 5);

  • Name

    PARVIS OJAGH VS. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00334632-CU-PO-SIM

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2009

Plaintiff commenced this action on August 11, 2014, asserting causes of action for negligence and premises liability. Premises liability is a form of negligence. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Mgmt. Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) Thus, the elements of a negligence claim—duty, breach, causation and damages—apply to premises liability. (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.) Store owners are not insurers of the safety of their patrons.

  • Case No.

    Ruiz vs Bodega Latina

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2016

On 5/30/17, Plaintiff Varsik Mnatsakanyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Venus Adult Health Care Center (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence, and (2) premises liability.

  • Name

    VARSIK MNATSAKANYAN VS VENUS ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE CENTER

  • Case No.

    BC663096

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2017

Premises liability is a form of negligence. Thus, “[t]he elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158; see also McIntyre v. The Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 664, 671; Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corporation (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627, 634.) However, for premises liability,actual or constructive knowledge by the landlord is necessary. (Stone v.

  • Name

    CHING VS ZHOU

  • Case No.

    CVRI2102463

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

PREMISES LIABILTY The Motion of Stoneledge Furniture for summary judgment on the Perez cross-complaint is DENIED on the claims for premises liability. The claim for premises liability is based on the condition of the electrical system at Stoneledge and at the MEP at the time of the accident.

  • Name

    MOUNTAIN VS DP ELECTRIC

  • Case No.

    RG17857926

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2021

The demurrer is OVERRULED as to premises liability. CONCLUSION Defendants demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend on all claims except premises liability. The demurrer is OVERRULED as to premises liability. Defendant shall file an answer within 20 days.

  • Name

    LATINA YOUNG VS NANCY WATSON

  • Case No.

    22STCV19827

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability are both predicated on the same theory of liability – Defendant’s negligence. (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 12, 13.) Similarly, Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and premises liability are both predicated on the same facts – Defendant allowed and failed to warn of a slippery substance on Defendant’s premises, which constituted a dangerous condition. (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 12, 14.)

  • Name

    JEAN HARDY VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV04142

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

Here, Defendants demur to the second cause of action alleged in Plaintiffs complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for premises liability against Facey, and the claim is instead more aptly characterized as a professional negligence cause of action. A. Premises Liability Plaintiffs second cause of action alleges Premises Liability against Facey and Providence.

  • Name

    KAREY KIBBE, ET AL. VS JESSICA E. MURPHY, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CHCV00093

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff states the elements for a negligence and premises liability cause of action (duty, breach, causation, damages). However, Plaintiff does not provide any authority that indicates a cause of action for res ipsa loquitor is separate and distinct from a negligence or premises liability claim.

  • Name

    VEAL VS WANNAMAKER

  • Case No.

    CVSW2102972

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Plaintiff states the elements for a negligence and premises liability cause of action (duty, breach, causation, damages). However, Plaintiff does not provide any authority that indicates a cause of action for res ipsa loquitor is separate and distinct from a negligence or premises liability claim.

  • Name

    VEAL VS WANNAMAKER

  • Case No.

    CVSW2102972

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Plaintiff states the elements for a negligence and premises liability cause of action (duty, breach, causation, damages). However, Plaintiff does not provide any authority that indicates a cause of action for res ipsa loquitor is separate and distinct from a negligence or premises liability claim.

  • Name

    VEAL VS WANNAMAKER

  • Case No.

    CVSW2102972

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Plaintiff brought this action for premises liability. Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action for general negligence on the basis that this cause of action was inadvertently omitted from the original complaint. Given Plaintiff’s general negligence cause of action is based on the same facts as the premises liability cause of action, Defendants would not be prejudiced by permitting this amendment. Defendants have not filed an opposition showing otherwise.

  • Name

    KIMBERLIN GARR VS MIXOLOGY MANAGEMENT LP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC635179

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

Because there are no attachments or facts that constitute a cause of action for premises liability, the Court strikes the "Premises Liability, L-1, Premises Liability L-2, Premises Liability L-3, and GN-1" from paragraph 15 in the form complaint because it is irrelevant to the motor vehicle claim pleaded in the rest of the complaint.

  • Name

    CRYSTAL BALANDRAN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV21884

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2021

Awad (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1200, 1207 [the elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence].) The Court finds that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for premises liability. (Donnell v. California Western School of Law (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 715, 725 – 726; See Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Serv. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.)

  • Case No.

    CV-2023-0112

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2023

  • County

    Yolo County, CA

BACKGROUND On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff Manuel Marquez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Compton, Eduardo Lopez, and Josefina Cruz alleging negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on October 9, 2016. On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, modifying the facts supporting Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action.

  • Name

    MANUEL MARQUEZ VS CITY OF COMPTON ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC658430

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

Discussion Premises Liability Kohls argues that pursuant to Plaintiffs Response to Requests for Admission, it is entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings.

  • Name

    VINETTA WALLER-NGANGU VS KOHL'S, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23TRCV01124

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Premises Liability Premises liability “is grounded in the possession of the premises and attendant right to control and manage.” Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 118. Where an independent contractor exercises control over the owner’s premises, his duty of care toward third persons is commensurate with that of the owner. Chance v. Lawry’s Inc. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 368, 376.

  • Name

    ATA KASHANI VS UNIBAIL-RODAMCO-WESTFIELD, SE

  • Case No.

    19STCV04048

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging the same medical negligence cause of action and adding a premises liability cause of action against Defendant Providence Health & Services (“Demurring Defendant”).

  • Name

    NICOLLE BROWN VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV04515

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

The City has not demurred to the third cause of action for premises liability. In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) motor vehicle liability against Gertrude Ring; (2) general negligence against City of Los Angeles and Gertrude Ring; (3) premises liability against City of Los Angeles (“City”).

  • Name

    VADIM ALBUKH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV29934

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

The Court located a different treatise entitled “Premises Liability, 3d,” which is published by Thompson Reuters. However, section 27 and 28 of Premises Liability, 3d also do not contain the quotations asserted by Plaintiff. Section 27 discusses jury selection for premises liability cases, and section 28 discusses opening statements.

  • Name

    NANCY JOHNSON VS ANDY CHESLER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC627285

  • Hearing

    Apr 12, 2018

While this is true, such allegations are not necessary to state a cause of action for premises liability. In Defendants’ motion to strike, they argue Plaintiff’s premises liability cause of action is duplicative of Plaintiff’s negligence cause of action. (Motion, pp. 4:21-5:2.) This argument is more properly brought in a demurrer. (See Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v.

  • Name

    DOREEN NG VS ZOEY CHEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV23656

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

The opposition does not address these arguments, or the basis of a claim for premises liability against the moving defendant, instead making general arguments which might apply to the other causes of action asserted but would not operate to cure the defects in the premises liability claim.

  • Name

    WYATT DONALDSON, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AMBER OTTE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV46294

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Discussion In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability. The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Annocki v.

  • Name

    NANCY RIVERA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV42825

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

While premises liability and negligence are based on the same elements, they are different causes of action and may be alleged in separate causes of action. Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 994, 998. They are also subject to different CACI instructions, the 400 and 1000 series. While the first cause of action for premises liability asserts that food on the floor created a dangerous condition, the second cause of action for negligence also alleges other duties and breaches of those duties.

  • Name

    HERNANDEZ VS. GARDEN PARK CARE CENTER, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00865992-CU-PO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2016

Here, City of Lancaster argues it is not liable for Plaintiffs premises liability and negligence claims, and is therefore not liable to the Hallidays under theories of equitable indemnity and apportionment. It argues it is not liable for premises liability or negligence because it had no duty to maintain or warn of the tree; and it had no duty to maintain or warn of the tree because the tree is located on private, rather than municipal property.

  • Name

    ARKEY AN INDIVIDUAL RANDY VS CITY OF LANCASTER PUBLIC ENTITY ET AL

  • Case No.

    20AVCV00816

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not raised triable issues of fact as to whether Defendant is liable for premises liability. The motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability is granted. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability is granted.

  • Name

    CLEMENTINA SANCHEZ VS KATERRA INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC683934

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

Premises Liability Cause of Action Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability on the ground Plaintiff does not state facts showing compliance with Government Code section 945.4. Before suing a public entity, a plaintiff must present a written claim to the public entity (Gov. Code, § 945.4.), and must allege compliance with the claim presentation requirement. (Esparza v. Kaweah Delta Dist. Hospital (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 547, 656.)

  • Name

    STEVE KESSLER VS L A C M T A

  • Case No.

    19STCV18145

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

There are no facts which would set forth a different theory under a cause of action for premises liability. Furthermore, Plaintiffs, who did not oppose this Demurrer, do not explain how their two causes of action differ with respect to Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action for premises liability is SUSTAINED with 20 days’ leave to amend.

  • Name

    KEITH CARTER, ET AL. VS VARDAN TOKMAJYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV23944

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2021

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs causes of action for negligence and premises liability fail to state causes of action and are uncertain. Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs causes of action for negligence and premises liability are conclusory, and lacking material facts in support of the allegations made.

  • Name

    AIZA CATZIM VS CENTURY TOWERS ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV23527

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code § 815.2, (3) premises liability and (4) negligence. This hearing is on The LSMD Fund LAs demurrer.

  • Name

    LINDA GHERMEZIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23SMCV02696

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the first cause of action for premises liability count two – willful failure to warn.

  • Name

    GEORGE TOBERMAN VS CITY OF MALIBU

  • Case No.

    BC689653

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

He does not include the required attachments - for Cause of Action-General Negligence or Cause of Action-Premises Liability. There are no "charging allegations" or identification of how the accident occurred. Defendant's motion to strike is moot in light of this ruling. Plaintiff may file and serve a first amended complaint by March 27, 2020.

  • Name

    HARVEY VS SALVATION ARMY

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00047547-CU-PO-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

Second Cause of Action for Premises Liability The only substantive allegations in Plaintiffs' premises liability claim against Pinpoint are (a) that Pinpoint "negligently owned, maintained, managed and operated the described premises" (see 2nd Amended Complaint, p. 5, ¶Prem.L-2); and (b) that Pinpoint was an agent/employee of the other Defendants (id. at ¶Prem.L-5.)

  • Name

    EDWARD HOPE VS GORDON MOODY

  • Case No.

    56-2019-00525471-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2021

Demurring Defendant argues that the FAC’s first cause of action for negligence is duplicative of the third cause of action for premises liability. (Demurrer, pp. 4:19-5:3.) Plaintiff argues that these causes of action are not duplicative because premises liability is more specific than negligence because the breach of the duty occurred on school grounds. (Opposition, pp. 4:26-5:2.) Plaintiff’s argument is unconvincing.

  • Name

    YANG LIN JIN VS ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV00219

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

Duplicative Causes of Action Defendant also argues the causes of action for negligence and premises liability and duplicative. Much of the case law Defendant relies upon involves two separate cases, not two separate causes of action within one case. See, for example, City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447 and Merchants Fire Ins. Co. v. Retail Credit Co., Inc. (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 55. There is nothing inherently improper with stating claims for both negligence and premises liability.

  • Name

    JOSE CAUDILLO, AN INDIVIDUAL VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS COSTCO

  • Case No.

    19STCV08985

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2019

Causes of Action for Premises Liability and Negligence Defendant demurs to the complaint which alleges two causes of action for premises liability and negligence, arguing that the sole statutory basis for a claim imposing liability on a public entity, based on the condition of the public entitys property, is Government Code section 835.

  • Name

    MINOO SAGHIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV37767

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2022

DISCUSSION Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint for negligence and premises liability. The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. ( Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. ( Annocki v.

  • Name

    SARA TAMANO VS DEL AMO FASHION CENTER OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV05689

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Tentative Ruling: Defendants� motion to strike count two of plaintiff�s second cause of action for premises liability is granted.

  • Name

    BRIAN FREDERICK VS GELSON'S ET AL

  • Case No.

    1466563

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2014

Defendant LRS Realty & Management, Inc. demurs to the second count of the cause of action for premises liability based on willful and malicious failure to guard or warn against the dangerous condition. Defendant also moves to strike those allegations in paragraph Prem. L-3 on page 4 of the complaint. Plaintiff used Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001(4) in preparing the cause of action for premises liability in the complaint.

  • Name

    RONALD FECIK VS LRS REALTY & MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV41290

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

DISCUSSION Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s complaint for negligence and premises liability. The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. ( Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. ( Annocki v.

  • Name

    SARA TAMANO VS DEL AMO FASHION CENTER OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV05689

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Here, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for medical malpractice, premises liability and negligence. The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 994, 998.)

  • Name

    ELIZABETH LEWIS COLE VS LONG BEACH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC662067

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2017

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998). Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property in order to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. (Alcaraz v.

  • Name

    KINAWY V. NORTH PARK PLAZA, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01143016

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2021

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the counts for failure to warn and dangerous condition of property, which are included in the cause of action for premises liability, is denied to the extent it is based on Government Code §§830 and 830.2. These statutes preclude liability for a trivial property defect.

  • Name

    LITSA V. CITY OF VALLEJO

  • Case No.

    FCS049645

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

Premises liability is a form of negligence. (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Mgmt. Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619.) Thus, the elements of a negligence claim—duty, breach, causation and damages—apply to premises liability. (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)

  • Name

    CURTIS V. GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION OF LAGUNA WOODS

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00889323-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2017

The premises liability claim is adequately pled. The premises liability claim is more specific than the general negligence claim in that the basis for a duty arises from the Defendant’s ownership or control of the property. Premises liability is a form of negligence, which involves the duty of a premises owner to exercise ordinary care in the management of the premises to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. Brooks v.

  • Name

    ODILIA ROSALES VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    18STCV06198

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2019

In particular, the City focuses on Count One – Negligence under the Premises Liability cause of action.

  • Name

    JOSE PENA VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

  • Case No.

    C22-00941

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2022

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Premises Liability and General Negligence The elements of a premises liability and negligence cause of action are the same: duty, breach, causation and damages. (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)

  • Name

    SANDRA VILLA VS APEX PARKS GROUP LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC702905

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2019

L-3” in Plaintiff’s first cause of action for premises liability, as well as the “Attachment to Prem. L-3.” Plaintiff used Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001(4) in preparing the cause of action for premises liability in the first amended complaint. Plaintiff checked the box concerning “Willful Failure to Warn [Civil Code section 846].” In so doing, Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants “willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity.”

  • Name

    KATHLEEN MERRICK VS PRISM HOSPIALITY LP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC680096

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2019

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have properly plead that they are successors in interest of Decedent, and they have standing to bring Decedent’s premises liability cause of action on his behalf. Thus, Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s cause of action for premises liability is OVERRULED. Wrongful Death Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ Complaints is uncertain because it makes a vague reference to wrongful death but fails to actually plead the cause of action.

  • Name

    DARNELL JERNIGAN, ET AL. VS L. A. PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT I LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV02620

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

First Cause of Action: Premises Liability Metro argues that Plaintiff’s first cause of action for premises liability contains improper counts for negligence and willful failure to warn thus making it uncertain. First, with regard to Count One-Negligence, Metro contends that Plaintiff cannot claim common law negligence against Metro since Metro is a public entity.

  • Name

    HERBERT LEON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC654933

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2017

Premises Liability (First Cause of Action) “The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) “In regard to premises liability, ‘the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that applies in negligence cases.’ [Citation]” (Coyle v. Historic Mission Inn Corporation (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 627.)

  • Name

    BEVERLY THYMES, ET AL. VS GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17STLC01443

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

First Cause of Action for Premises Liability: G4S argues that the first cause of action for premises liability fails because Plaintiffs have failed to allege “actual facts, as opposed to boiler plate conclusions that defendant G4S “owned, operated, maintained and/or managed the premises.” (G4S Dem. at p.12.) We are currently in the pleading stage of this action. A general demurrer assumes the facts alleged in the pleading to be true, however improbable they may be. (Del E. Webb Corp. v.

  • Name

    DONALD L C HAYNES ET AL. VS TRADER JOE'S COMPANY ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UPI-2020-0004755

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

Based on the above, the cause of action for premises liability adds nothing to the complaint “by way of fact or theory of recovery.” Plaintiffs were previously granted leave to amend and did not correct the complaint’s defect. The Court sustains without leave to amend Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for premises liability. IV. CONCLUSION Defendant’s demurer to Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for negligence is OVERRULED.

  • Name

    KEITH CARTER, ET AL. VS VARDAN TOKMAJYAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV23944

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Defendants Seek to Demurrer Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint did not Identify a Dangerous Condition for a Premises Liability Cause of Action To establish allegations of Premises Liability, the Plaintiff must allege particular facts constituting a dangerous or defective condition. Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Ca1.2d 443 446-447. Crane v. Smith (1943) 23 Cal.2d 288, 296.

  • Name

    LYNDA CASS VS MARTEL HEIGHTS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV33917

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2021

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope