Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.
ARGUMENT
Applicable Law
CACI 1001 (Standard of Care) provides:
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. 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. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In deciding whether defendant used reasonable care, you may consider, among other factors, the following:
(a) The location of the property;
(b) The likelihood that someone would come on to the property in the same manner as plaintiff did;
c) The likelihood of harm;
(d) The probable seriousness of such harm;
(e) Whether defendant knew or should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm;
(f) The difficulty of protecting against the risk of such harm; [and]
(g) The extent of [name of defendant] ‘s control over the condition that created the risk of harm; [and]
(h) [Other relevant factor(s).]
The comment to CACI quotes the leading California Supreme Court cases on premises liability: The proper test to be applied to the liability of the possessor of land… is whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable man in view of the probability of injury to others … Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 119.
The comment further quotes the Supreme Court:
It must also be emphasized that the liability imposed is for negligence. The question is whether in the management of his property, the possessor of land has acted as a reasonable person under all the circumstances. The likelihood of injury to plaintiff, the probable seriousness of such injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, the location of the land, and the possessors degree of control over the risk-creating condition are among the factors to be considered by the trier of fact in evaluating the reasonableness of a defendant’s conduct.
Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 372.
Knowledge of a defective condition on premises created by the owners employee is imputed to the owner as a matter of law. Hatfield v. Levy Brothers (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798, 806; Williams v. Carl Karcher Enterprises Inc. (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 479,491. The jury instruction is CACI 1012.
(See Part 9 of 12.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.