Victims injured by a hazard on someone’s property can file injury claims to seek financial recovery. When property owners and proprietors and their insurance providers refuse to accept responsibility, victims have the right to take them to court.
You could be one of the jurors selected to decide if a property or business owner is responsible for a victim’s injury expenses. Thankfully, there’s an online resource that can help jurors prepare for a California premise liability injury trial. The California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) goes over what jurors can expect when asked to decide a premises liability dispute.
California Civil Jury Instructions for Jurors Assigned to Premises Liability Cases
The California Civil Jury Instructions is an online document meant to help people prepare for the difficult responsibilities and decisions they’ll face as a juror. It’s maintained and updated by The Judicial Council Advisory Committee of California.
Jurors can access the guide to help them understand their duties when hearing personal injury cases (civil cases) involving things like premises liability, car accidents, labor violations, and other important issues.
Jurors will also find a preview of what they’ll experience during jury selection and during a personal injury trial. You can find out more about what jurors can expect when taking part in the California civil trial here.
Types of California Premises Liability Cases
Premises liability cases often involve slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases. This is where victims are sent to the ground to suffer an injury because of hazards left out by a property owner. Apartment landlords might also leave an unsafe stairwell unrepaired until someone falls down and suffers a broken bone. A business owner could leave wiring exposed to cause someone to receive an electrical shock.
These cases are often settled before a trial becomes necessary. However, when medical costs for victims grow, commercial insurance companies can decide to fight to avoid liability. This leaves injured victims without proper support.
They may be forced to take an insurer to court to earn what’s fair. This leaves a judge and sometimes a jury responsible for deciding if a property owner failed in the duty to keep the visitors they invite in reasonably safe.
Basic Duty of Care in California Premises Liability Cases
Any premises liability case heard in court will involve the “duty of care” that property and business owners owe their visitors, customers, clients, tenants, and others. It’ll be an important reference point as jurors decide who is responsible for an injury received on someone’s property.
The CACI (pronounced Casey) describes the duty of care legal requirements for anyone who invites the public onto a property or into a business:
Section 1001.
“A person who [owns/leases/occupies/controls] property is negligent if that person fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. 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.”
A store like Walmart is responsible not just for cleaning up or repairing the issues its employees create. They must constantly monitor the store and parking lot for hazards left by other customers. This might include a spilled drink on an aisle. They must remove these dangers in a reasonable amount of time or face liability in a trial after someone gets hurt. They may be forced to pay for a slip-and-fall victim’s medical bills.
This duty of care extends to restaurant owners, landlords and property management companies, theme-park owners, and other property owners and corporate owners who invite the public in. In some cases, victims will file lawsuits against a corporation that owns a chain of stores or string of residential properties. Plaintiffs and their personal injury lawyers will need to prove a company is responsible for the actions of their employees.
Jurors might hear a case where a city department is being blamed for unsafe conditions in a public building or a public park. They’d have to decide if a city or county was liable for someone’s injury and financial hardships.
Proving Negligence in a Premises Liability Civil Trial
Jurors in premises liability cases should examine Section 1000 of the California Civil Jury Instructions. The passage goes over what a plaintiff (the injured party) would need to prove in order to be legally justified to ask for recovery support.
The CACI explains how a premises liability case comes to be:
Section 1000.
“[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed because of the way [name of defendant] managed [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] property.”
The CACI goes on to instruct the juror on the details they should be looking for. In a trial, a jury member hearing a premises liability case should note if some key factors are established that show a business or property owner is liable:
- The defendant owned or leased the property.
- That defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property.
- The plaintiff suffered an injury.
- The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
A California Business Owner’s Duty to Visitors
The next sections of the California Civil Jury Instructions explain number 2 in the above list in more detail for jurors. It deals with the determination if a business owner’s carelessness truly caused an accident.
Jurors would have to decide if owners and operators knew about a hazard. Jurors are also asked to determine if a property owner could have reasonably done more to repair or clean up the issue. Should they have warned others about the problem (perhaps with a “wet floor” sign)?
Section 1003.
“[Name of defendant] was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property if:
- A condition on the property created an unreasonable risk of harm;
- [Name of defendant] knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about it; and
- [Name of defendant] failed to repair the condition, protect against harm from the condition, or give adequate warning of the condition.”
Additional Premises Liability Responsibilities for California Property Owners
The failure of landlords and property management companies in their duty of care can leave them vulnerable to premises liability lawsuits. Tenants facing unsafe conditions in an apartment or on the grounds can get injured. It’s up to a juror to decide when landlords should have known about existing hazards and if they had adequate time to try to remove them. CACI Section 1006 goes over how jurors should consider arguments over these sorts of premises liability cases.
Premises liability negligence can also involve a property owner or business owner’s failure to protect tenants, customers, or clients from criminal activity. Jurors may hear cases where a property owner is accused of failing to provide adequate lighting or security to discourage criminal acts. CACI Section 1005 goes over how Jurors should weigh evidence in a case such as this.
Jurors may hear cases that involve victims who were injured on unsafe sidewalks. The responsibility of the maintenance of the sidewalk may be in question as a city department, a homeowner, a landlord, or a business owner could all be held liable. Sections 1007 and 1008 go over how jurors should decide these sorts of personal injury cases.
Contact a California Premises Liability Lawyer
If you find yourself the victim of a premises liability accident or a slip-and-fall injury, please speak with a skilled California Trip-and-Fall Injury Lawyer. Maison Law practices premises liability law to help victims suffering serious injuries secure full medical support as they heal.
We offer a free case consultation to all California victims of premises liability accidents. Contact us to set up a case review. It’s a no-risk way to determine if you have a case and how much your injury claim may be worth. Maison Law wants to provide a voice for every injured victim who must take on an insurance company or corporate lawyers simply to get fair compensation.
