Los Angeles Slip and Fall Accident Lawyer — California Premises Liability Claims

Slip, trip, and fall accidents are among the most common — and most seriously underestimated — categories of personal injury claims in Los Angeles. They happen in grocery stores, retail chains, restaurants, hotel lobbies, apartment complexes, parking structures, and on public sidewalks. They can cause fractures, traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, and torn ligaments that require surgery, extended rehabilitation, and produce permanent functional limitations.

They are also among the most aggressively defended personal injury claims in California. Property owners and their insurers deny, delay, and diminish slip and fall claims with a consistent set of tactics developed over decades of litigation. Understanding California premises liability law — what property owners owe you, what you have to prove, and what the defense will argue — is the foundation of an effective claim.

This guide, written from the perspective of a Los Angeles personal injury attorney who has handled premises liability cases for over 30 years, covers everything injured people need to know about slip and fall claims in Los Angeles: the legal framework, the elements of proof, the evidence that wins cases, the defenses that defeat them, and how to choose an attorney who has actually litigated these cases.

California Premises Liability Law — The Legal Framework

The general duty of care

California Civil Code Section 1714 establishes the foundational rule: everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their failure to exercise ordinary care or skill in the management of their property. California Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) 1000 — the standard jury instruction given in premises liability cases — frames the standard for property owners specifically:

This duty is broader than many property owners — and injured people — realize. It is not limited to conditions the owner actually knew about. The “reasonably should have known” standard means that an owner who fails to conduct regular inspections can be held liable for a hazard they never actually observed, if a reasonable inspection program would have discovered and remediated it.

Visitor classification and the duty owed

California law distinguishes between categories of visitors based on the purpose of their presence on the property. The duty of care owed differs by category:

• Invitees — customers, business visitors, members of the public on property open to the public. Property owners owe invitees the highest duty: active inspection for hazards, remediation or warning of all known or discoverable dangerous conditions.
• Licensees — social guests, people on the property with the owner’s permission for a non-business purpose. Owners must warn of known dangerous conditions but have no duty to actively inspect for unknown hazards.
• Trespassers — people on the property without permission. Owners owe only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury. The primary exception is the attractive nuisance doctrine for child trespassers.

In commercial contexts — retail stores, restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, apartment complexes — virtually all injured visitors are invitees, subject to the highest standard of care. Disputes about visitor classification are most common in residential and private-property contexts.

Notice — the core contested issue in most slip and fall cases

The most frequently litigated issue in California premises liability cases is notice: did the defendant know, or should the defendant reasonably have known, about the hazardous condition before the plaintiff was injured? This question takes two forms:

• Actual notice — the defendant had direct knowledge of the condition (e.g., an employee created the spill, the condition was reported by a customer, or a prior incident had already occurred at the same location).
• Constructive notice — the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection program would have discovered it. California courts have consistently held that a business owner who fails to implement regular inspection protocols cannot claim ignorance of conditions that would have been discovered had inspections been conducted.

Evidence of constructive notice — how long the hazard existed before the fall — is often the decisive factor in slip and fall claims. Surveillance footage, employee inspection logs, and incident reports from prior incidents at the same location are the primary tools for establishing it.

The Four Elements of a Slip and Fall Claim in California

To prevail in a slip and fall personal injury claim in California under CACI 1000, a plaintiff must establish all four of the following elements:

Each element requires its own evidentiary foundation, and each is separately contested by defense counsel and property owner insurers. An experienced premises liability attorney builds the case file around these four elements from the moment of engagement — not as an afterthought during litigation preparation.

Duty of Care by Property Type — Los Angeles Premises Liability Contexts

The duty of care analysis is not one-size-fits-all. Different property types generate different legal standards, different evidence profiles, and different defendant structures. The table below covers the most common premises liability contexts in Los Angeles.

Evidence That Wins Slip and Fall Cases in Los Angeles

Slip and fall cases are won or lost on evidence. The challenge is that the most valuable evidence — surveillance footage showing how long a hazard existed, maintenance logs showing inspection failures, prior incident reports showing the owner knew about the same hazard — is controlled by the defendant and disappears quickly absent aggressive preservation demands.

Surveillance footage — the most time-sensitive evidence

Modern commercial properties record surveillance footage continuously — but most systems overwrite footage automatically after 24 to 72 hours, and some after as little as 12 hours. Once footage is overwritten, it is gone. An attorney engaged immediately after a slip and fall incident can send a written preservation demand (sometimes called a spoliation letter) to the property owner before footage is destroyed. If footage is subsequently destroyed after a preservation demand has been received, the attorney can seek a spoliation inference instruction — telling the jury it may assume the destroyed footage would have been unfavorable to the defendant.

Incident reports

Many commercial properties require employees to complete incident reports when a customer falls. These reports are filed with risk management departments and insurers, and they frequently contain admissions — descriptions of the condition, acknowledgments of prior knowledge, employee names — that are directly useful in litigation. Incident reports are obtainable through the claims process and, if not produced voluntarily, through discovery.

Maintenance and inspection logs

The absence of regular, documented inspection protocols is itself evidence of negligence. A grocery store that cannot produce records of regular floor inspections in the area where a fall occurred has constructive notice of whatever hazard existed there. Maintenance and inspection logs are obtained through discovery in litigation; their absence or gaps are argued to the jury as evidence of negligence.

Prior incident history

If other people have fallen at the same location before your incident, that history is powerful evidence that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. Prior incidents at the same location are discoverable in litigation, and property owners who have settled prior claims at the same site have done so for reasons they would prefer not to disclose at trial.

Expert witnesses in slip and fall cases

Two categories of expert testimony are most valuable in contested Los Angeles slip and fall cases:

• Safety and building code experts — engineers and safety consultants who can testify that the surface, lighting condition, or structural element that caused the fall did not meet applicable California building codes, OSHA standards, or industry safety guidelines. This expert converts an anecdotal “the floor was slippery” into a specific, documented standard violation.
• Biomechanical experts — specialists who can explain how a specific fall mechanism produces specific injuries, countering the defense argument that the plaintiff’s injuries could not have been caused by the described incident.

Common Defense Tactics in Los Angeles Slip and Fall Cases — And How to Counter Them

Property owners and their liability insurers defend slip and fall claims aggressively and systematically. Understanding the playbook in advance allows an experienced attorney to build the case specifically to neutralize each tactic. The table below covers the six most common defenses in Los Angeles premises liability litigation.

What to Do Immediately After a Slip or Trip and Fall in Los Angeles

The actions you take in the minutes and hours following a slip and fall accident in Los Angeles can significantly affect the outcome of a subsequent claim. Here is what matters most, in order of priority:

At the scene — before you leave

• Report the incident to the store manager, property supervisor, or responsible party immediately. Insist that an incident report be completed. Get a copy of the report number or request that one be emailed to you.
• Do not accept any form or document presented by the property’s representative at the scene that releases liability or minimizes your injuries. You are not required to sign anything.
• Photograph the hazardous condition before it is cleaned up or remediated. If you cannot do this yourself, ask a companion or bystander to photograph it. The condition of the surface, lighting, and any warning (or absence of warning) signage are all important.
• Photograph your visible injuries — bruising, abrasions, swelling — at the scene and in the days following. Many soft-tissue and bruising injuries worsen in appearance 24–48 hours after the incident.
• Get the names and contact information of any witnesses before they leave.
• Do not minimize your injuries in conversation with property employees or managers. Statements like “I’m fine” or “it’s not that bad” made at the scene are admissible and can be used to limit your claim.

Within 24–48 hours

• Seek medical evaluation — even if you believe your injuries are minor. Many fall injuries, including fractures and soft-tissue injuries, are not fully symptomatic immediately. A medical record created close in time to the incident is essential to establishing causation.
• Contact a personal injury attorney before speaking with any insurance adjuster. The property owner’s insurer will contact you quickly. Do not provide a recorded statement without legal counsel.
• Document everything in writing — dates, times, what happened, what you observed, what was said by property employees. Memory fades; contemporaneous written notes are admissible.
• Preserve any physical evidence — the shoes you were wearing, the clothing — in the condition they were in at the time of the fall. Defense counsel may seek to examine them.

Statute of Limitations and Special Rules for Government Property

Standard California statute of limitations — CCP Section 335.1

Personal injury claims arising from slip and fall accidents on private property must be filed within two years of the date of injury. This deadline applies to claims against individual property owners, retail chains, restaurants, hotels, landlords, and private commercial entities. Missing the deadline bars the claim entirely, regardless of the strength of the underlying facts.

Government property — six-month Government Tort Claim deadline

If the slip and fall occurred on government-owned property — a public sidewalk, a city-owned parking structure, a school campus, a county building, a public park, or any other property owned or controlled by a government entity — the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) applies. A formal Government Tort Claim must be filed with the responsible government entity within six months of the date of injury. Failure to file within this six-month window bars the lawsuit entirely. This deadline is strictly enforced.

In Los Angeles, slip and fall incidents on public sidewalks are a common occurrence — particularly in areas with significant tree root-caused pavement uplift, such as many Westside neighborhoods, South LA, and older areas of the San Fernando Valley. These claims require prompt Government Tort Claim filings against the City of Los Angeles or relevant municipality.

Discovery rule exceptions

California’s discovery rule may toll (pause) the statute of limitations in cases where the injured person did not discover, and could not reasonably have discovered, the injury or its cause within the standard period. This exception is narrow and requires specific factual circumstances; it should not be relied upon as a substitute for prompt legal consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Resources on This Website

• Los Angeles Personal Injury Trial Lawyer — 30 Years of Courtroom Experience — victimslawyer.com
• How California Contingency Fee Personal Injury Cases Work — victimslawyer.com
• Free Personal Injury Consultation in Los Angeles — victimslawyer.com
• Traumatic Brain Injury Claims in California — victimslawyer.com
• Wrongful Death Attorneys in Los Angeles — victimslawyer.com
• Types of Personal Injury Cases We Handle in Los Angeles — victimslawyer.com

Injured in a Slip and Fall in Los Angeles? Free Consultation.

Premises liability cases require immediate action — surveillance footage disappears within days, incident reports go to defense counsel, and insurance adjusters open files the same day. If you or a family member has been injured in a slip, trip, or fall accident anywhere in Los Angeles or Southern California, contact Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC for a free, confidential consultation. No upfront cost. No fee unless we win.

Phone: 866-966-5240

Website: victimslawyer.com

Address: 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400-488, Los Angeles, CA 90064

Introduction: A Moment That Changes Everything

Imagine it’s a warm Saturday afternoon in Los Angeles. A six-year-old boy from the neighborhood wanders into a backyard he has visited before. The gate latch is broken. The pool has no fence around it. He sees the water shimmering in the sun and steps closer — and within minutes, the unthinkable happens. By the time anyone notices, it is too late.

This scenario, tragically, repeats itself across Los Angeles County dozens of times each year. California consistently ranks among the states with the highest rates of childhood drowning deaths. According to the CDC, drowning is the leading cause of unintentional injury death among children ages 1 to 4 in the United States — and California’s climate means residential pools are ubiquitous. When a child drowns in a private backyard pool, one of the first questions grieving families ask is: can the pool owner be held responsible, even if the child was trespassing?

The answer, under California law, is often yes. As an experienced Los Angeles swimming pool accident lawyer, I have seen firsthand how the attractive nuisance doctrine and premises liability principles can hold negligent property owners accountable — even when the child who was harmed did not have permission to be on the property. This article explains everything families need to know about their legal rights in these devastating situations.

California Premises Liability Law: The Foundation

California premises liability law is rooted in Civil Code Section 1714, which establishes that every person is responsible for injury caused by their failure to use ordinary care in managing their property. Property owners owe different levels of duty depending on who is on their land.

General Duty of Care

In California, the general rule is that property owners must maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. They must inspect for hazards, repair dangerous conditions, and warn visitors of known dangers. This duty applies to anyone who enters the property lawfully — but California law goes further when children are involved.

How California Treats Trespassers

Traditionally, trespassers were owed only a limited duty: landowners could not willfully or wantonly harm them. Under the old common law, if you trespassed and got hurt, you largely had no recourse. California modernized this framework in Rowland v. Christian (1968), 69 Cal. 2d 108, which established that all persons — including trespassers — are owed reasonable care under the circumstances. Courts weigh multiple factors, including foreseeability of harm, the burden of precaution, and the nature of the risk.

California’s Heightened Protections for Children

Children occupy a special category in California premises liability law. Because children are developmentally incapable of recognizing and avoiding certain dangers, California imposes a significantly higher duty of care on landowners when there is reason to foresee that children might enter the property. This heightened protection is embodied in the attractive nuisance doctrine — the cornerstone of pool drowning liability.

The principle is simple but powerful: if a property owner maintains something that is both dangerous and naturally appealing to children, that owner cannot simply hide behind the fact that the child was trespassing. The law expects landowners to anticipate child behavior.

The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine: Why Pool Owners Face Liability

The attractive nuisance doctrine is perhaps the most important legal concept for families who have lost a child in a swimming pool accident involving trespass. Understanding it is essential.

What Is the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?

In plain terms, the attractive nuisance doctrine holds that a landowner may be liable for injuries to child trespassers if the property contains a condition that: (1) is artificial (man-made); (2) poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury; (3) is known or should be known to the owner; (4) is likely to attract children who cannot appreciate the risk; and (5) could have been made safe without unreasonable expense or effort.

California follows this doctrine as reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 339, and has applied it in numerous cases involving residential swimming pools, trampolines, construction equipment, and other dangerous structures.

Why Swimming Pools Are Classic Attractive Nuisances

Courts across California have consistently recognized that swimming pools are quintessential attractive nuisances. They are visually appealing to children of all ages. Young children are drawn to water instinctively but lack the cognitive development to understand that an unsupervised pool presents a life-threatening hazard. The danger is not obvious to a child the way it is to an adult.

A backyard pool sits exposed to the neighborhood. Children can see it over fences, hear splashing, and remember swimming there during a party. They enter without appreciating that what makes it fun also makes it fatal. This dynamic is precisely why the law places the responsibility on the adult property owner — not the child.

The Five Elements Courts Evaluate

When all five elements are established, California courts hold that the property owner owed a duty to the child trespasser — and if that duty was breached, the owner may be held liable for the child’s injuries or death.

Hypothetical: Consider a five-year-old who slips through a broken gate into a neighbor’s unfenced pool area. The neighbor knew the gate was broken for weeks and had received multiple HOA notices about pool barrier requirements. The child drowns. Under California’s attractive nuisance doctrine, the neighbor’s failure to repair the gate — a minor burden — while foreseeing that neighborhood children might enter likely establishes liability.

Key Case Law: King v. Lennen, 53 Cal. 2d 340 (1959)

No discussion of California pool liability and child trespassers would be complete without examining King v. Lennen, 53 Cal. 2d 340 (1959) — a landmark California Supreme Court decision that remains foundational to this area of law more than six decades later.

The Facts of King v. Lennen

In King v. Lennen, the defendants owned a residential property in California that contained a swimming pool. The plaintiff, a young child, entered the defendants’ property without permission and drowned in the pool. The defendants argued they owed no duty of care to a trespassing child. The trial court initially sided with the defendants, but the California Supreme Court reversed.

The California Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in King v. Lennen turned on the principle of foreseeability. The Court held that a landowner who maintains a swimming pool — an inherently dangerous condition — must anticipate that young children in the neighborhood are likely to be drawn to it. The fact that the child was trespassing did not eliminate the landowner’s duty; rather, the foreseeable danger to children who could not appreciate the risk of drowning created an independent obligation to take reasonable precautions.

The Court emphasized that the burden on the property owner to secure the pool — through fencing, barriers, or other measures — was modest compared to the life-threatening risk posed to young children who lacked the capacity to recognize danger. This cost-benefit analysis is central to the attractive nuisance framework and is reflected in how California courts evaluate pool drowning cases today.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

King v. Lennen helped establish California’s approach to landowner liability for child trespassers as one of the most protective in the nation. The case reinforced several principles that govern modern pool drowning litigation:

• Foreseeability of child entry onto property is evaluated from the perspective of what a reasonable landowner should anticipate, not whether any specific child was known to frequent the area.
• The inability of young children to appreciate risk is presumed by courts — landowners cannot argue that a child ‘should have known better.’
• The modest cost of remediation (fencing, gates, locks, alarms) compared to the severity of the potential harm weighs heavily in favor of imposing liability.
• Compliance with pool safety codes is a floor, not a ceiling — courts may find liability even when a property meets minimum legal standards if additional precautions were clearly warranted.

Subsequent California decisions have continued to build on King v. Lennen. In cases like Beard v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1970) and Flores v. Autozone (more recent premises liability decisions), California courts have affirmed that the foreseeability of harm to children commands heightened scrutiny of a landowner’s safety measures.

California Pool Safety Laws and Regulations

California has enacted specific statutes designed to prevent exactly the tragedies described in this article. The Swimming Pool Safety Act, codified in California Health and Safety Code Sections 115920–115929, requires residential swimming pools to incorporate at least two drowning prevention safety features chosen from a specific list.

Required Safety Features Under California Law

• Enclosure fencing: A fence, wall, or other barrier at least 60 inches high that completely surrounds the pool and separates it from the house, with no direct access from the home to the pool area except through a self-closing, self-latching gate.
• Removable mesh fencing: A removable mesh pool fence meeting ASTM standards with a self-closing, self-latching gate.
• Pool cover: An approved, motorized safety pool cover meeting ASTM standards.
• Door alarms: Alarms on all doors providing direct access from the home to the pool area that sound an alarm audible throughout the home.
• Pool alarms: Underwater motion detection alarms or surface wave detection alarms for the pool.
• Door self-closing/latching devices: Self-closing, self-latching devices on all doors providing direct pool access.

Negligence Per Se: How Violations Create Legal Liability

When a pool owner fails to comply with California Health and Safety Code requirements, they may be held liable under the doctrine of negligence per se. Under California Evidence Code Section 669, a violation of a statute creates a presumption of negligence if: (1) the plaintiff was in the class of persons the statute was intended to protect; (2) the harm is the type the statute was intended to prevent; and (3) the violation caused the injury.

A child drowning victim is precisely the class of person the Swimming Pool Safety Act was designed to protect. A drowning is exactly the harm the statute was designed to prevent. When a pool owner skips required safety features, that failure can establish negligence as a matter of law — making the plaintiff’s case significantly stronger.

Liability Scenarios: When Courts Are Most Likely to Find Fault

Los Angeles pool drowning cases arise in many different contexts. Below are the most common scenarios and how courts typically analyze them.

1. Unfenced Backyard Pool

A completely unfenced residential pool in a neighborhood with children represents perhaps the clearest liability case. With no barrier between the street or adjacent yards and the water, any child can wander in. Foreseeability is nearly impossible to dispute. Courts consistently find that maintaining an open pool without any enclosure in a populated neighborhood — especially one with children present — violates both the spirit of California law and the basic requirements of reasonable care.

2. Broken or Unlocked Gate

Even when a fence exists, a broken latch, rusted gate, or habitually unlocked gate creates serious liability exposure. Owners who are aware of a compromised barrier and fail to repair it in a timely manner cannot claim the fence satisfied their duty of care. This scenario is common in Los Angeles residential neighborhoods, where pool fencing can deteriorate without regular maintenance.

3. Apartment Complex or HOA Pool Negligence

Multi-unit residential properties and homeowner associations bear special responsibility for pool safety. HOA pools and apartment complex pools serve dozens or hundreds of residents — including children. When pool gates are left propped open, alarm systems are disabled, or required safety signage is missing, the HOA or management company may face liability not only to residents but potentially to neighboring children who access the pool. These cases may involve additional defendants beyond the individual property owner.

If your child was injured at an apartment or HOA pool, consulting a Los Angeles premises liability attorney can help you identify all potentially liable parties.

4. Airbnb and Short-Term Rental Property Liability

Los Angeles has a large short-term rental market. When an Airbnb or VRBO host rents a property with a pool, both the host and potentially the platform may face liability for drowning incidents. Rental hosts often fail to inspect their pool’s safety features between guests, and neighborhood children may access the pool during gaps in occupancy. California courts applying standard premises liability and attractive nuisance principles have found liability in short-term rental contexts.

5. Public vs. Private Pool

Public pools operated by municipalities, school districts, or private businesses are governed by additional regulations — including lifeguard requirements, signage mandates, and ADA compliance. Government entities enjoy some immunity protections but can still face liability under California Government Code Section 835 when a dangerous condition of public property causes injury. Private club pools and fitness center pools fall under general premises liability standards and may also be subject to heightened supervision duties when children are present.

Wrongful Death Claims When a Child Drowns

When a child dies as the result of a swimming pool drowning caused by another party’s negligence, California law provides a mechanism for the family to seek justice: a wrongful death claim under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60.

Who Can Bring a Claim?

In California, wrongful death claims may be brought by the deceased child’s parents, legal guardians, and, in some cases, other dependents or persons entitled to inherit from the child. In virtually all child drowning cases, the parents will be the primary claimants.

Types of Damages

California wrongful death damages fall into two broad categories:

• Economic Damages: These include the financial value of the child’s lost future earnings and support, funeral and burial expenses, and medical expenses incurred before death.
• Non-Economic Damages: These are the most significant in child death cases and include the parents’ loss of love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, and moral support from their child. California juries are deeply attentive to the emotional devastation of losing a child.

Jury Sensitivity in Child Death Cases

Los Angeles juries have historically awarded substantial verdicts in cases involving the wrongful death of a child. The profound nature of losing a child — particularly under circumstances that were preventable — resonates deeply with jurors. Defense attorneys know this, which is why insurance companies and defense counsel often seek early settlement in child drowning cases involving clear liability. An experienced attorney understands how to leverage this dynamic and will fight for maximum compensation on behalf of grieving families.

Insurance Coverage and Financial Recovery

Homeowner’s Insurance

Most California homeowner’s insurance policies include personal liability coverage that extends to claims arising from accidents on the property — including pool drowning incidents. Standard policies typically carry liability limits of $100,000 to $300,000, though many larger Los Angeles homes carry higher limits.

Umbrella Policies

Many homeowners in Los Angeles — particularly in higher-value neighborhoods — carry umbrella insurance policies that provide an additional $1 million or more in liability coverage above their standard homeowner’s policy. In wrongful death cases involving child drowning, identifying and pursuing umbrella coverage is a critical step that experienced attorneys never overlook.

When Damages Exceed Coverage

In cases involving severe wrongful death damages, total liability can exceed available insurance coverage. In such situations, the property owner’s personal assets may be at risk. An experienced Los Angeles personal injury attorney will conduct a thorough assets analysis to identify all sources of recovery, including any commercial policies for rental or Airbnb properties, HOA insurance, and any secondary coverage that may apply.

Common Defenses — And Why They Often Fail

Property owners and their insurance carriers will assert a range of defenses in pool drowning cases. Understanding these defenses — and why courts frequently reject them when children are involved — is essential.

‘The Child Was Trespassing’

This is the most common defense, and it is also the least likely to succeed in California. As King v. Lennen and subsequent cases confirm, trespassing status does not eliminate a landowner’s duty to child entrants. The entire purpose of the attractive nuisance doctrine is to override this defense when the victim is a child drawn to a dangerous condition.

Comparative Fault

California follows a pure comparative fault system under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975). In theory, a pool owner might argue the child was partially at fault for entering the property. However, courts are extremely reluctant to assign fault to young children — particularly those under age 5 or 6 — because the law presumes they lack the capacity to understand risk. A child of tender years is generally not held comparatively negligent. Older children may face some apportionment, but even then, courts consider developmental maturity rather than simply age.

Assumption of the Risk

Express assumption of the risk requires knowing and voluntary acceptance of a specific danger. Young children cannot, as a matter of law, expressly assume the risk of drowning. Implied assumption of the risk is similarly difficult to establish against a child who simply wandered toward water.

Compliance With Safety Codes

A property owner who points to code compliance as a complete defense will often find courts unimpressed. Meeting minimum statutory requirements establishes a floor — not a ceiling — for the duty of care. If additional safety measures were feasible and the risk was heightened, courts may still find negligence even when the technical requirements of the Health and Safety Code were satisfied.

What Families Should Do After a Pool Drowning Incident

If your family has suffered the unthinkable loss of a child in a swimming pool drowning, acting quickly and methodically can preserve your legal rights and the evidence needed to build a successful case.

• Call 911 immediately and ensure the incident is formally documented by law enforcement and emergency responders.
• Photograph the pool, fencing, gate, latches, alarms (or their absence), and any surrounding conditions before any alterations are made to the property.
• Request copies of all police reports, coroner’s reports, and paramedic/EMS records.
• Identify and speak to any witnesses who observed the conditions of the pool area or the events leading to the drowning.
• Do not speak to the pool owner’s insurance company or sign any releases without first consulting a lawyer.
• Preserve all communications with the pool owner or their insurer, including emails, texts, and voicemails.
• Contact an experienced Los Angeles wrongful death attorney as soon as possible — California’s statute of limitations for wrongful death claims is generally two years from the date of death, but critical evidence must be secured immediately.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Contact Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC for a free consultation specific to your situation.

The average slip and fall settlement in California is typically between $30,000 and $60,000 — but that number alone tells only part of the story. Cases involving serious injuries, strong liability, and significant documented damages can settle for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions. Minor cases with limited injuries may resolve for less than $10,000.

If you’ve been hurt in a slip and fall accident at a grocery store, apartment complex, restaurant, hotel, or any other property in California, understanding how settlements are calculated is essential to protecting your rights. This guide provides authoritative, data-driven insight into what your case may be worth — and what you can do to maximize it.

California Slip and Fall Settlement Value Table

The following ranges reflect typical outcomes across California courts and insurance settlements, based on injury type and case complexity:

Important: These ranges are guidelines, not guarantees. Every slip and fall case in California is fact-specific. Liability strength, the property owner’s insurance coverage, your comparative fault percentage, and the quality of your legal representation all affect where your case falls within — or beyond — these ranges.

Real California Slip and Fall Case Examples

The following representative cases illustrate the range of outcomes in California premises liability claims. Case names are omitted to protect privacy, but these outcomes reflect actual case types and results achieved across California courts and insurance negotiations:

Case 1: Grocery Store Wet Floor — Knee Surgery Required

A shopper in Los Angeles slipped on an unmarked wet floor near a refrigeration unit. The fall caused a torn meniscus requiring arthroscopic surgery. Medical bills exceeded $45,000. The property owner’s insurance initially offered $20,000. After retaining an attorney and obtaining video surveillance showing the puddle had existed for over 30 minutes, the case settled for approximately $155,000 — including future medical costs and pain and suffering.

Case 2: Apartment Complex — Broken Staircase Railing

A tenant fell down exterior stairs at an apartment complex in the San Fernando Valley after a rusted handrail gave way. The fall caused a hip fracture requiring surgical repair and months of physical therapy. The property management company had received written complaints about the railing three months earlier. The case settled for $310,000, reflecting strong liability and documented negligence.

Case 3: Restaurant Slip — Spinal Disc Herniation

A restaurant patron in Orange County slipped on a greasy floor near the kitchen entrance that lacked adequate non-slip matting. The incident caused a lumbar disc herniation requiring epidural injections and ultimately a spinal fusion procedure. Total medical expenses exceeded $120,000. The case resolved for $525,000, accounting for future medical care needs and a partial reduction in the victim’s earning capacity.

Case 4: Hotel Pool Deck — Traumatic Brain Injury

A guest at a Los Angeles hotel slipped on an improperly maintained pool deck surface, striking her head on a concrete edge. The fall caused a moderate traumatic brain injury with lasting cognitive symptoms. The hotel’s maintenance logs showed no surface inspections in over six months. This catastrophic injury case settled for $1,200,000 after mediation.

Case 5: Government Property Fall — Sidewalk Defect

Note on government claims: If you fall on government-owned property — a city sidewalk, a public park, or a school — California law requires you to file a government tort claim within six (6) months of the incident under California Government Code §911.2. Missing this deadline can permanently bar your claim. A representative case involving a cracked municipal sidewalk in Los Angeles resulted in a $95,000 settlement, reflecting the additional procedural hurdles and immunities applicable to public entity defendants.

Case 6: Retail Store Fall — Fractured Wrist and Shoulder

A customer at a large retail chain in the Inland Empire slipped on a spilled liquid that had not been cleaned up or marked with warning signs. The fall caused a fractured wrist and torn rotator cuff. With strong surveillance evidence and clear negligence, the case settled for $185,000 — reflecting moderate-to-severe injuries, documented losses, and aggressive pre-litigation demand.

What Factors Determine the Value of a Slip and Fall Settlement in California?

No formula exists that spits out a precise settlement number. However, experienced personal injury attorneys evaluate the following factors when assessing case value:

A. Severity and Nature of Your Injuries

This is the single most important factor. Minor soft-tissue injuries — sprains, bruises, minor lacerations — typically produce lower settlements. Fractures, surgeries, torn ligaments, spinal injuries, and traumatic brain injuries yield significantly higher values. Permanent impairment or disability dramatically increases case worth.

B. Total Medical Expenses — Past and Future

Economic damages start with your medical bills: emergency room visits, surgeries, hospitalizations, physical therapy, prescription medications, and imaging studies. Future medical costs — for ongoing treatment, future surgeries, or long-term care needs — are projected by medical experts and included in your claim. These projections can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to severe injury cases.

C. Lost Income and Diminished Earning Capacity

If your injuries caused you to miss work, those lost wages are recoverable. If the injuries permanently limit your ability to work — or prevent you from returning to your prior occupation — a vocational expert and economic analyst can calculate the present value of your lost earning capacity, which can be substantial in cases involving younger victims or professionals.

D. Pain and Suffering — Non-Economic Damages

Non-economic damages compensate for the physical pain, emotional distress, anxiety, loss of enjoyment of life, and impact on personal relationships caused by your injuries. California does not cap non-economic damages in most personal injury cases (unlike medical malpractice). Insurance companies typically calculate these using either:

• The multiplier method: Total medical bills × a factor of 1.5x to 5x (or higher for severe injuries)
• The per diem method: Assigning a daily dollar value to your suffering and multiplying by recovery days

An experienced attorney will fight to maximize non-economic damages, which are often the largest component of serious injury settlements.

E. Strength of Liability — Who Was at Fault and by How Much?

A slip and fall case requires proving that the property owner (or occupier) knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and failed to fix it or adequately warn visitors. Clear, documented evidence of negligence — security footage, prior complaints, maintenance logs, witness testimony — dramatically strengthens your case and increases settlement value.

Conversely, if the dangerous condition was obvious, if you were in an area you were not supposed to be, or if the property owner had limited time to discover and correct the hazard, liability may be contested — reducing the settlement offer.

F. California’s Pure Comparative Fault Rule

California follows the pure comparative negligence doctrine (California Civil Code §1714). This means even if you were partially at fault for your fall — perhaps you were distracted, wearing improper footwear, or ignored a warning sign — you can still recover damages. However, your award is reduced by your percentage of fault.

Insurance companies aggressively use comparative fault arguments to reduce their exposure. An experienced attorney will anticipate these arguments and build a counter-narrative supported by evidence.

California Premises Liability Law — The Legal Foundation

Slip and fall claims in California are governed by premises liability law, which is rooted in California Civil Code §1714. This statute establishes that everyone is responsible for injury to others caused by their failure to exercise ordinary care or skill in the management of their property.

To prevail on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements:

• Ownership, lease, or control: The defendant owned, leased, or controlled the property
• Negligence: The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property
• Causation: The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm
• Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual physical, emotional, or economic harm

California courts use the concept of a “reasonably prudent property owner” — would a reasonable owner have known about the condition and corrected it? Regular inspections, maintenance logs, and employee training all affect this analysis.

Special Deadline: Claims Against Government Entities

If your fall occurred on government property — including city or county sidewalks, public parks, state-owned buildings, public schools, or government offices — California law requires you to file a government tort claim within six (6) months of the injury. This deadline is far shorter than the standard two-year statute of limitations for private property claims. Missing it can permanently bar your recovery, regardless of how serious your injuries are. Contact an attorney immediately if a government entity may be responsible for your fall.

How Insurance Companies Calculate Settlement Offers

Understanding the insurance company’s playbook helps you recognize when an offer is unfair:

The Multiplier Method

Adjusters total your “special damages” (medical bills + lost wages) and multiply by a factor typically between 1.5 and 3 for moderate injuries, and up to 5 or higher for severe or permanent injuries. The multiplier increases with injury severity and strength of liability.

The Per Diem Method

Some adjusters assign a daily dollar value (often equal to your daily wage) to your pain and suffering and multiply it by the number of days you suffered. This method tends to undervalue long-term or chronic conditions.

Liability Discounts

If liability is disputed — perhaps the property owner claims the condition was open and obvious, or that you were trespassing — the adjuster will apply a “liability discount” to the calculated value, sometimes reducing the offer by 30–50% or more.

Surveillance and Claim Denial Tactics

Insurance companies routinely use surveillance to observe claimants in the weeks following an injury. They will monitor your social media accounts for posts that suggest you are more physically capable than claimed. They may also contact your treating physicians directly or issue requests for extensive medical records to find pre-existing conditions they can use to minimize your claim.

Never give a recorded statement to the defendant’s insurance adjuster without first consulting an attorney. Early recorded statements are frequently used against claimants.

Insurance Settlement Offers vs. What You Can Actually Recover

Initial settlement offers from insurance companies are almost always below the fair value of the claim. Adjusters are trained to use your financial pressure, confusion, and unfamiliarity with the legal process to obtain a quick, low settlement. Common tactics include:

• Calling within days of the accident when you are still in pain and disoriented
• Offering a small payment in exchange for a full release of all claims
• Minimizing the severity of your injuries by challenging the medical necessity of treatment
• Arguing you had pre-existing conditions that caused your symptoms
• Claiming the dangerous condition was open and obvious

An attorney who regularly handles slip and fall cases will recognize these tactics, respond with documented evidence, and leverage the threat of litigation to maximize your recovery.

Timeline: How Long Does a Slip and Fall Case Take in California?

Most California slip and fall cases resolve within 6 to 18 months. The timeline depends on injury severity, whether litigation is required, and the court’s schedule. Here is a general overview:

The majority of California slip and fall cases settle before trial. Settlement is typically preferable for injured victims because it provides certainty, avoids the cost of a trial, and resolves the claim faster — especially when liability is reasonably clear and damages are well-documented.

How to Maximize Your Slip and Fall Settlement in California

The actions you take in the days and weeks following a slip and fall accident directly affect your ability to recover full compensation. Follow these steps:

• Seek immediate medical attention — Even if you feel only minor pain initially, many serious injuries (disc herniations, TBI, internal injuries) manifest symptoms gradually. A gap in medical treatment gives insurers grounds to deny or minimize your claim.
• Document the scene — Photograph or video the hazardous condition, the area around it, any warning signs (or lack thereof), your injuries, and your clothing and footwear.
• Report the accident — Notify the property owner, manager, or security on the day of the incident. Request a written incident report and keep a copy.
• Identify witnesses — Get the names and contact information of anyone who saw the fall or the condition that caused it.
• Preserve your evidence — Keep the shoes and clothing you were wearing at the time of the fall.
• Do not give recorded statements — Politely decline to provide recorded statements to the insurance company until you have spoken with an attorney.
• Avoid posting on social media — Insurance adjusters monitor social media. A single photo or post can be taken out of context to undermine your claim.
• Hire an experienced personal injury attorney — Attorneys with deep premises liability experience know how to investigate the claim, secure evidence before it disappears, retain expert witnesses, and negotiate from a position of strength.
• Do not accept early settlement offers — Early offers are almost always inadequate. Wait until you have reached Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) before settling, so your full damages are known.

Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator: Estimating Your Case Value

While only an attorney can accurately value your specific case, this framework gives you a starting estimate:

Frequently Asked Questions: Slip and Fall Settlements in California

Related Resources: See our Los Angeles Slip and Fall Lawyer page | California Premises Liability Guide | What to Do After a Fall Accident | Government Property Injury Claims California

© 2026 Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contact our office for a confidential, no-cost consultation regarding your specific situation.

Understanding Slip and Fall Cases in California

Slip and fall accidents represent a significant portion of personal injury cases across the United States. In California, these incidents fall under premises liability law, which requires property owners to maintain safe conditions for visitors and guests.

Property owners have a legal duty to keep their premises reasonably safe and warn visitors of potential hazards. When they fail in this responsibility, injured parties have grounds to pursue compensation. However, proving negligence requires more than simply showing you fell on someone’s property. You must demonstrate that the property owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and failed to address it adequately.

Common Causes of Slip and Fall Accidents

Understanding what causes these accidents helps establish liability in your case. Slip fall lawyers frequently handle claims involving:

• Wet or slippery floors without proper warning signs
• Uneven pavement or broken sidewalks
• Poor lighting in stairwells or walkways
• Debris or obstacles in walkways
• Torn carpeting or loose floorboards
• Ice or snow accumulation in winter months
• Freshly waxed floors without adequate notice

Each scenario requires different evidence and legal strategies. The CDC’s fall prevention initiatives highlight how common these incidents are, particularly among older adults, emphasizing the importance of proper property maintenance.

When You Need Slip Fall Lawyers

Not every slip and fall requires legal representation, but certain circumstances make hiring an attorney essential. Knowing when to seek professional help protects your rights and maximizes your potential compensation.

Serious Injury Indicators

Consider contacting slip fall lawyers immediately if your accident resulted in:

1. Broken bones or fractures requiring surgery or extended recovery
2. Traumatic brain injuries from hitting your head during the fall
3. Spinal cord damage affecting mobility or sensation
4. Permanent disabilities that impact your ability to work
5. Severe soft tissue injuries requiring extensive physical therapy

The severity of your injuries directly correlates with the complexity of your case and the compensation you deserve. Understanding what is a statute of limitations ensures you file your claim within California’s legal timeframes.

Disputed Liability Situations

Property owners and their insurance companies frequently dispute fault in slip and fall cases. They may claim you were trespassing, that the hazard was obvious, or that you contributed to your own injuries. Slip fall lawyers become invaluable when dealing with these defenses.

Insurance adjusters are trained to minimize payouts. They might offer quick settlements that seem generous initially but fall far short of covering your long-term expenses. Having experienced legal representation prevents you from accepting inadequate compensation or making statements that could harm your claim.

The Legal Process for Slip and Fall Claims

Navigating a premises liability claim involves multiple stages, each requiring specific documentation and strategic decisions. Understanding this process helps you prepare for what lies ahead.

Investigation and Evidence Gathering

Strong slip and fall cases are built on thorough evidence collection. Your attorney will gather:

This evidence forms the foundation of your claim. Slip fall lawyers know exactly what documentation strengthens your case and how to obtain it legally.

Demand and Negotiation Phase

After compiling evidence, your attorney drafts a demand letter outlining your injuries, the property owner’s negligence, and your compensation request. This formal document initiates negotiations with the insurance company.

Most slip and fall cases settle during this phase. Insurance companies prefer avoiding trial expenses when liability is clear. However, initial offers typically undervalue claims significantly. Experienced slip fall lawyers counter these lowball offers with evidence-based arguments that justify higher compensation.

The negotiation process can take weeks or months. Your attorney handles all communications, protecting you from tactics designed to diminish your claim’s value. For insights into this decision-making process, review guidance on settling vs going to trial to understand which approach might benefit your specific situation.

What Compensation Can You Recover

Understanding the full scope of available damages ensures you don’t settle for less than you deserve. Slip fall lawyers pursue compensation across multiple categories.

Economic Damages

These are quantifiable financial losses with specific dollar amounts:

• Medical expenses including emergency treatment, surgery, hospitalization, medication, and ongoing care
• Lost wages for time missed from work during recovery
• Lost earning capacity if injuries prevent you from returning to your previous occupation
• Property damage such as damaged clothing, glasses, or personal items
• Home modifications if disabilities require accessibility improvements

Documentation is crucial for economic damages. Keep every medical bill, pay stub, and receipt related to your accident. Your attorney uses these records to calculate precise compensation amounts.

Non-Economic Damages

These damages compensate for intangible losses that don’t have clear monetary values:

• Pain and suffering from physical injuries
• Emotional distress and anxiety
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• Disfigurement or scarring
• Loss of consortium affecting family relationships

California law doesn’t cap non-economic damages in most personal injury cases. Slip fall lawyers present compelling evidence of how your injuries have impacted your quality of life to maximize these damages.

Choosing the Right Slip Fall Lawyer

Not all personal injury attorneys have equal experience with premises liability cases. Selecting the right representation significantly impacts your outcome.

Experience and Specialization

Look for attorneys who specifically focus on slip and fall cases rather than general practitioners. Ask about:

1. Their track record with similar cases and settlement amounts
2. Years of experience handling premises liability claims
3. Trial experience if negotiations fail
4. Knowledge of local laws specific to California and Los Angeles
5. Resources available for investigating and building your case

A qualified attorney should offer a free evaluation of personal injury claims to assess your case’s merit before you commit.

Fee Structures and Costs

Most slip fall lawyers work on contingency fee arrangements, meaning they only get paid if you win your case. Understanding how much does a slip and fall lawyer cost helps you budget appropriately and avoid surprises.

Typical contingency fees range from 33% to 40% of your settlement or award. The percentage may increase if your case goes to trial due to the additional work required. This arrangement makes quality legal representation accessible regardless of your financial situation.

Building a Strong Slip and Fall Case

Success in premises liability claims depends on establishing four critical elements. Your attorney must prove each component to recover compensation.

Duty of Care

The property owner owed you a duty to maintain safe premises. This duty varies based on your status as a visitor:

Most slip and fall cases involve invitees, where property owners have the strongest obligation to maintain safe conditions.

Breach of Duty

You must show the property owner violated their duty through action or inaction. This often involves demonstrating they knew or should have known about the dangerous condition. Evidence might include:

• Previous complaints about the same hazard
• Inspection records showing inadequate maintenance
• Industry standards the property failed to meet
• Length of time the hazard existed before your accident

Slip fall lawyers investigate thoroughly to uncover proof of negligence that might not be immediately obvious.

Causation

Your injuries must directly result from the property owner’s negligence. This requires medical documentation linking your injuries to the fall and excluding pre-existing conditions or alternative causes.

Detailed medical records, expert testimony, and accident reconstruction might be necessary to establish this connection definitively.

Damages

Finally, you must have suffered actual harm requiring compensation. This element is typically straightforward when you’ve incurred medical bills and missed work, but proper documentation remains essential.

Common Defenses Property Owners Use

Understanding how property owners defend against slip and fall claims helps you prepare for challenges to your case. Slip fall lawyers anticipate these arguments and counter them effectively.

Comparative Negligence

California follows pure comparative negligence rules. Even if you’re partially at fault, you can still recover damages, though they’re reduced by your percentage of responsibility.

Property owners often argue you:

• Failed to watch where you were walking
• Ignored obvious hazards or warning signs
• Wore inappropriate footwear
• Were distracted by your phone
• Were in an area where you shouldn’t have been

Your attorney gathers evidence showing you acted reasonably under the circumstances and that the property owner’s negligence was the primary cause of your accident.

Lack of Notice

Defendants frequently claim they didn’t know about the dangerous condition and had no reasonable way to discover it. They must prove either:

1. The hazard was present for such a short time that they couldn’t have discovered it through reasonable inspection
2. Their inspection procedures were adequate and would not have revealed the condition

Slip fall lawyers counter this defense by examining maintenance logs, employee training records, and industry standards to show the property owner should have identified and corrected the hazard.

Assumption of Risk

In some cases, property owners argue you voluntarily assumed the risk by proceeding despite obvious danger. This defense rarely succeeds in typical slip and fall cases unless you ignored clear warnings or barriers.

The Impact of Location on Your Claim

Where your accident occurred significantly affects your legal options and the parties potentially liable for your injuries.

Commercial Properties

Slip and fall accidents in retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and other businesses typically involve corporate defendants with substantial insurance coverage. These cases often settle for higher amounts but face more aggressive defense strategies.

For example, accidents at rental properties booked through platforms create unique liability questions explored in cases involving Airbnb accident injuries.

Public Property

Accidents on government property require special procedures, including filing claims within strict deadlines (often just six months in California). Governmental immunity laws create additional challenges that experienced slip fall lawyers navigate routinely.

Residential Properties

Homeowners typically carry liability insurance through their homeowner’s policy, which covers slip and fall accidents. However, these policies often have lower limits than commercial insurance, potentially affecting available compensation.

Maximizing Your Slip and Fall Settlement

Strategic decisions throughout your case directly impact your final compensation. Slip fall lawyers employ proven tactics to maximize recovery.

Timing Your Claim

Filing too early, before you understand the full extent of your injuries, can result in settling for less than you need. However, waiting too long risks missing critical evidence or legal deadlines.

Experienced attorneys balance these concerns by:

• Waiting for maximum medical improvement when possible
• Preserving evidence immediately while pursuing treatment
• Using medical experts to project future care needs
• Monitoring statute of limitations deadlines carefully

Documentation Best Practices

From the moment your accident occurs, documentation strengthens your claim:

1. Report the accident to the property owner or manager immediately
2. Photograph the scene including the hazard, your injuries, and surrounding conditions
3. Collect witness information from anyone who saw the accident
4. Seek immediate medical attention even if injuries seem minor
5. Keep a symptom journal documenting pain levels and limitations
6. Save all receipts related to your accident and recovery

Your attorney uses this documentation to build a compelling narrative demonstrating the full impact of your injuries.

The Value of Patience

Insurance companies often delay negotiations hoping you’ll accept a quick settlement out of financial desperation. Slip fall lawyers have the resources to wait for fair offers while advancing costs on your behalf.

This patience frequently results in settlements that are multiples of initial offers, more than compensating for the additional time invested.

Medical Considerations in Slip and Fall Cases

The injuries you sustain directly determine your case’s value. Understanding common slip and fall injuries helps you recognize when you need specialized medical care.

Immediate vs. Delayed Symptoms

Some injuries manifest immediately, while others develop over hours or days:

Never refuse medical evaluation after a fall, even if you feel fine. Documentation from the emergency room or urgent care establishes a critical timeline connecting your injuries to the accident.

Long-Term Complications

Severe slip and fall accidents can result in permanent disabilities requiring lifetime care. Slip fall lawyers work with medical experts to calculate future medical needs and incorporate these costs into your demand.

Chronic pain, reduced mobility, and psychological trauma all factor into your compensation. Thorough medical documentation supports claims for these ongoing impacts.

Working with Your Slip Fall Attorney

The attorney-client relationship works best when you understand your role and responsibilities throughout the legal process.

Your Responsibilities

While your lawyer handles the legal heavy lifting, you must:

• Attend all medical appointments and follow treatment recommendations
• Communicate promptly when your attorney requests information
• Avoid social media posts about your accident or injuries
• Don’t speak with insurance adjusters without your attorney present
• Keep your attorney informed of any changes in your condition or contact information

These seemingly simple tasks protect your claim from defenses that undermine your credibility.

What to Expect from Your Attorney

Professional slip fall lawyers provide:

• Regular updates on your case’s progress
• Clear explanations of legal strategies and options
• Honest assessments of your claim’s strengths and weaknesses
• Aggressive representation of your interests
• Accessibility when you have questions or concerns

If your attorney isn’t meeting these standards, you have the right to seek different representation.

Special Considerations for Vulnerable Victims

Certain demographics face heightened slip and fall risks and may require additional legal considerations.

Elderly Victims

Falls pose particular dangers for older adults, often resulting in more severe injuries and longer recovery periods. Slip fall lawyers factor in age-related complications when calculating damages, including increased medical needs and reduced healing capacity.

Children

Premises liability standards sometimes differ for child victims, as property owners must account for children’s limited ability to recognize dangers. Cases involving injured minors also require court approval of settlements.

Disabled Individuals

The Americans with Disabilities Act imposes additional requirements on many property owners. Violations of accessibility standards can strengthen slip and fall claims when they contribute to accidents.

Slip and fall accidents can derail your life in an instant, but you don’t have to face the aftermath alone. Understanding your rights, gathering strong evidence, and working with experienced legal representation gives you the best chance at fair compensation that covers all your losses. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident in Los Angeles, Steven M Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC offers the experienced guidance and aggressive representation you need to hold negligent property owners accountable while you focus on healing.

Understanding Slip and Fall Legal Claims

Slip and fall cases fall under premises liability law, which holds property owners and managers responsible for maintaining safe conditions for visitors. According to slip and fall legal principles, establishing liability requires proving several key elements that demonstrate the property owner’s negligence directly caused your injuries.

Essential Elements of Liability

Property owners have a legal duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. This responsibility includes regular inspections, prompt repairs, and adequate warnings about known hazards. When pursuing a claim, your fall and slip lawyer must establish four critical components:

• Duty of care existed between the property owner and the injured party
• Breach of duty occurred through negligence or failure to maintain safe conditions
• Causation links the breach directly to your specific injuries
• Damages resulted from the accident, including medical expenses and lost wages

The complexity of premises liability cases often requires detailed investigation and expert testimony to prove each element convincingly.

Common Causes and Liability Scenarios

Different hazardous conditions create distinct legal challenges. Wet floors without warning signs, uneven pavement, poor lighting, debris in walkways, and defective stairs represent frequent causes of fall incidents. Each scenario requires specific evidence and legal arguments to demonstrate negligence.

Weather-related conditions present particular challenges in California. While property owners cannot control rain or natural moisture, they must take reasonable steps to protect visitors. This includes placing warning signs, using absorbent mats, and implementing proper drainage systems.

Selecting the Right Fall and Slip Lawyer

Choosing qualified legal representation significantly impacts your case outcome. The critical qualities to look for in a slip-and-fall lawyer include specific experience, proven track record, and willingness to take cases to trial when necessary.

Experience and Specialization Matter

Not all personal injury attorneys possess equal expertise in premises liability cases. A fall and slip lawyer should demonstrate specific experience handling similar cases, understanding both the legal nuances and practical challenges these claims present. Look for attorneys who regularly handle premises liability matters rather than general practitioners.

Consider these essential qualifications:

1. Years of specialized practice in slip and fall cases
2. Track record of settlements and verdicts in similar matters
3. Knowledge of local property codes and safety regulations
4. Relationships with expert witnesses including engineers and medical professionals
5. Trial experience demonstrating willingness to litigate when necessary

Many firms, including Steven M Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, focus specifically on personal injury law, providing the depth of knowledge these cases demand.

Reputation and Client Testimonials

Professional reputation extends beyond client testimonials. Check whether the attorney maintains good standing with the California State Bar and participates in professional legal organizations focused on personal injury law.

Building a Strong Slip and Fall Case

Evidence collection begins immediately after an accident occurs. The importance of early investigation in slip-and-fall cases cannot be overstated, as critical evidence often disappears within days or even hours of an incident.

Immediate Steps After an Accident

Your actions immediately following a slip and fall incident significantly impact your eventual claim. Document everything possible at the scene, even if injuries seem minor initially. Many serious conditions, including traumatic brain injuries and spinal damage, may not manifest symptoms immediately.

Critical documentation includes:

• Photographs of the hazard, surrounding area, and your injuries
• Contact information for witnesses who saw the incident
• Written incident reports filed with property management
• Medical records from emergency treatment
• Clothing and footwear worn during the accident

Property owners often attempt to remedy dangerous conditions quickly after accidents, eliminating evidence of their negligence. Your fall and slip lawyer needs this documentation to reconstruct the scene and prove the hazardous condition existed at the time of your fall.

Medical Documentation and Treatment

Seeking immediate medical attention serves two crucial purposes: protecting your health and establishing documentation of your injuries. Delays in treatment give insurance companies ammunition to argue your injuries resulted from something other than the fall or were not serious enough to warrant immediate care.

Follow all medical recommendations and attend every scheduled appointment. Gaps in treatment create questions about injury severity and your commitment to recovery. Keep detailed records of all medical expenses, including transportation costs to appointments and out-of-pocket medication expenses.

Overcoming Common Legal Challenges

Fall and slip cases face unique obstacles that experienced attorneys must navigate strategically. Understanding these challenges helps set realistic expectations for your claim timeline and potential outcomes.

Comparative Negligence Defense

California follows a pure comparative negligence system, allowing property owners to argue that your own actions contributed to the accident. Insurance companies frequently claim victims were distracted, wore inappropriate footwear, or failed to notice obvious hazards.

Your fall and slip lawyer must counter these arguments with evidence demonstrating the hazard was not obvious, you exercised reasonable care, and the property owner’s negligence was the primary cause. Even if you bear partial responsibility, you can still recover damages reduced by your percentage of fault.

Evidence Disappearance and Property Changes

Property owners often repair hazardous conditions immediately after accidents, making it difficult to prove the dangerous condition existed. Security camera footage gets recorded over, witnesses become unavailable, and weather conditions change. This highlights why early and thorough investigation becomes critical to preserving your claim.

Experienced attorneys send preservation letters immediately, legally requiring property owners to maintain evidence. They work quickly to interview witnesses, obtain surveillance footage, and document conditions before changes occur.

Types of Recoverable Damages

Slip and fall injuries often result in substantial financial and personal losses extending far beyond immediate medical bills. A comprehensive claim addresses all categories of damages you’ve suffered and will likely experience in the future.

Economic Damages

Quantifiable financial losses form the foundation of your compensation claim. These include:

• Medical expenses: emergency treatment, surgery, rehabilitation, ongoing care
• Lost wages: time off work for treatment and recovery
• Lost earning capacity: reduced ability to work in the future
• Property damage: damaged clothing, accessories, or personal items

Documentation proves economic damages through bills, receipts, pay stubs, and expert economic testimony. Your fall and slip lawyer ensures all current and future economic losses are included in demand calculations.

Non-Economic Damages

Physical pain, emotional distress, and diminished quality of life deserve compensation even though they lack specific price tags. California law recognizes various non-economic damages:

Calculating pain and suffering damages requires understanding multiplier methods and per diem calculations that experienced attorneys apply based on case specifics.

Navigating the Legal Process Timeline

Understanding what to expect throughout your case helps reduce stress and allows for better decision-making. While every case is unique, the timeline of a personal injury case in California generally follows predictable phases.

Initial Investigation and Demand

After retaining a fall and slip lawyer, the investigation phase begins immediately. This period typically lasts two to four months, during which your attorney gathers evidence, obtains medical records, consults experts, and builds your case foundation.

Once you reach maximum medical improvement (MMI), meaning your condition has stabilized and doctors can project long-term prognosis, your attorney prepares a demand package. This comprehensive document presents evidence, establishes liability, and demands specific compensation for all damages.

Negotiation and Potential Litigation

Insurance companies rarely accept initial demands without negotiation. The negotiation phase can last several months as parties exchange offers and counteroffers. Your attorney’s experience becomes crucial here, knowing when to push harder and when an offer represents fair value.

If negotiations fail to produce acceptable settlement terms, filing a lawsuit becomes necessary. This doesn’t mean going to trial, as most cases settle even after litigation begins. However, your fall and slip lawyer must be prepared and willing to try cases when insurance companies refuse reasonable compensation.

1. Filing the complaint initiates the lawsuit
2. Discovery process exchanges evidence between parties
3. Depositions gather sworn testimony from witnesses
4. Mediation attempts seek settlement before trial
5. Trial preparation readies the case for court presentation
6. Trial or settlement reaches final resolution

Special Considerations for California Properties

California’s unique property laws and regulations create specific considerations for slip and fall cases. Understanding these nuances helps explain why local legal expertise matters significantly.

Apartment and Rental Property Claims

Los Angeles slip and fall cases in apartment buildings present complex liability questions. Determining whether the landlord, property management company, or maintenance contractor bears responsibility requires understanding California rental housing laws and lease agreements.

Common apartment hazards include broken stairs, inadequate lighting in common areas, pool deck issues, and parking lot defects. Landlords must maintain these areas according to state and local housing codes, creating clear liability standards when they fail to do so.

Commercial Property Liability

Stores, restaurants, and other businesses face strict standards for customer safety. Regular inspections, immediate hazard correction, and proper warning systems are legal requirements, not optional practices. Video surveillance at commercial properties often provides crucial evidence, though obtaining this footage requires quick legal action.

Business owners cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance of hazardous conditions. Courts apply the constructive knowledge standard, asking whether the owner should have known about the hazard through reasonable inspection procedures.

Maximizing Your Settlement Value

Several strategic factors influence final settlement amounts in slip and fall cases. While no attorney can guarantee specific outcomes, certain approaches consistently improve results.

Documentation Completeness

The strength of your documentation directly correlates with settlement value. Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys look for gaps they can exploit to reduce compensation. Comprehensive records eliminate these opportunities and demonstrate the full extent of your losses.

Your fall and slip lawyer should gather:

• Complete medical records from all treating providers
• Expert reports establishing long-term prognosis and future care needs
• Vocational assessments if injuries affect work capacity
• Psychological evaluations documenting emotional trauma
• Economic analyses calculating lifetime financial impact

Missing documentation weakens your negotiating position and potentially leaves compensation on the table.

Demonstrating Liability Clearly

The more convincingly you prove the property owner’s negligence, the higher your settlement value. Clear liability cases settle for more because defendants recognize their exposure at trial. Your attorney must present evidence that makes denying responsibility untenable.

Strong liability proof includes:

• Maintenance records showing the owner knew about hazards
• Prior incidents at the same location establishing notice
• Code violations demonstrating regulatory non-compliance
• Expert testimony explaining how the condition created danger
• Witness statements corroborating your accident account

Insurance companies settle based on risk assessment. When liability is clear and damages are well-documented, they face significant trial risk and adjust settlement offers accordingly.

Working with Your Legal Team

Successful outcomes require effective collaboration between you and your fall and slip lawyer. Understanding your role in the process helps ensure nothing undermines your case value.

Communication and Cooperation

Maintain open communication with your legal team throughout the process. Report any new symptoms or medical developments immediately, as these may affect your claim value. Follow all attorney advice regarding social media use, since insurance companies routinely monitor accident victims’ online activity for contradictory statements or posts.

Provide requested documents promptly and completely. Delays in gathering medical records or employment information can stall your case and extend the already lengthy process. Your attorney cannot build the strongest possible case without your cooperation and timely information.

Understanding Fee Structures

Most fall and slip lawyers work on contingency fees, meaning they receive payment only if you recover compensation. Understanding personal injury attorney fees helps you make informed decisions about representation and settlement offers.

Quality representation requires substantial investment in case development. Firms that advance all costs demonstrate confidence in your case and commitment to maximum results rather than quick settlements.

Special Injury Considerations

Certain slip and fall injuries create unique legal and medical complexities that affect case strategy and valuation. Recognizing these factors helps set appropriate expectations.

Traumatic Brain Injuries

Head injuries from falls represent some of the most serious and valuable claims. Even “mild” concussions can cause lasting cognitive problems affecting work performance and quality of life. Traumatic brain injuries require specialized medical experts who can document subtle neurological changes that may not appear on standard imaging.

Your fall and slip lawyer should retain neuropsychologists for comprehensive testing and neurologists for long-term prognosis. These injuries often worsen over time, making it critical to wait until the full extent becomes apparent before settling.

Fractures and Orthopedic Injuries

Broken bones from slip and fall accidents frequently require surgery, extensive rehabilitation, and sometimes permanent hardware installation. Average settlements for broken bone injuries vary widely based on fracture location, treatment complexity, and permanent limitations.

Hip fractures in elderly victims often prove catastrophic, leading to reduced mobility, loss of independence, and sometimes fatal complications. These cases demand thorough documentation of how the injury fundamentally altered the victim’s life trajectory.

Spinal Cord and Back Injuries

Slip and fall accidents commonly cause herniated discs, spinal fractures, and other back injuries that create chronic pain and disability. These injuries often require extensive treatment including epidural injections, physical therapy, and potentially spinal fusion surgery.

Proving causation becomes particularly important with back injuries, as insurance companies frequently argue pre-existing degenerative conditions caused your problems rather than the fall. Your attorney must secure expert medical testimony distinguishing pre-existing conditions from new, accident-related injuries.

Why Legal Representation Matters

Many slip and fall victims initially consider handling claims themselves to avoid legal fees. This approach rarely produces optimal results and often leads to significantly reduced compensation or denied claims entirely.

Insurance Company Tactics

Professional claims adjusters employ sophisticated strategies to minimize payouts. They may contact you immediately after an accident, hoping to secure recorded statements before you understand your injuries’ full extent. They phrase questions to elicit responses that undermine your claim and use your own words against you during negotiations.

Without a fall and slip lawyer protecting your interests, you may inadvertently:

• Accept early settlement offers that severely undervalue your claim
• Make statements that insurance companies twist to deny liability
• Miss critical filing deadlines that permanently bar your claim
• Fail to identify all potentially liable parties who should contribute
• Overlook damage categories you deserve to include

Insurance adjusters handle hundreds of claims annually. They know which arguments work and how to exploit unrepresented claimants’ lack of legal knowledge.

Leveling the Playing Field

Experienced legal representation balances the power dynamic inherent in personal injury claims. Your attorney understands the same tactics insurance companies employ and knows how to counter them effectively. They handle all communication, preventing you from making damaging statements while focusing on your medical recovery.

Professional representation also signals to insurance companies that you’re serious about obtaining fair compensation. Cases with retained attorneys statistically settle for significantly higher amounts than unrepresented claims, even after deducting legal fees.

Slip and fall accidents can dramatically impact your life, creating financial hardship and physical suffering that extends far beyond the initial incident. Understanding your legal rights, the evidence necessary to prove your claim, and the strategic considerations that maximize compensation helps you make informed decisions about your case. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident on someone else’s property, Steven M Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC provides the experienced representation you need to hold negligent property owners accountable and secure the full compensation you deserve for your injuries and losses.

Californians who suffer injuries in dog attacks that are not caused by bites may be able to recover damages by proving that the dogs’ owners were negligent. In Wolf v. Weber, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. A157937, the court considered whether the primary assumption of the risk doctrine bars negligence claims against dog owners when an injury occurs in an off-leash dog-walking trail.[1]

Factual background

Diane Wolf and her husband were walking their dog on a trail in Tilden Regional Park on Oct. 6, 2016, in an area in which dogs are allowed to be off their leashes but only when the dogs are under their owners’ control. Alexander Weber was also walking along the trail with his dog, a Boxer-Argentinian Mastiff mix, and a friend, Martin Cenek. Neither of the dogs was wearing leashes. Both groups were near the end of the trail, and Weber and his friend were approximately 70 feet ahead of Wolf and her husband. Weber’s dog started to lag behind his owner and then turned and headed towards Wolf, her husband, and her dog. Wolf yelled that she was afraid, and Weber tried to get his dog to return by yelling at him to sit. However, his dog did not obey. Weber called him several times, and his dog started to return to him. Wolf was scared and turned around and started to run when she felt something hit her in the back of the knee. She fell and broke two bones in her leg and dislocated her ankle.

No one saw exactly what caused Wolf to fall. Weber said that his dog and Wolf’s dog were circling each other and started to play when Wolf’s dog caused Weber’s dog to fall over and hit Wolf. Cenek said that the two dogs were rolling over together, but he did not see which dog caused Wolf’s fall. A Park District police officer interviewed Weber. During the interview, Weber said that he did not have his dog under his complete control and that his dog was still undergoing training. He was not cited.

Wolf filed a lawsuit against Weber, alleging negligence per se and negligence. She alleged that Weber breached the duty of care to keep his dog under control or leashed for the negligence cause of action. For the negligence per se cause of action, she alleged that Weber violated East Bay Mun. Code § 801.3 by failing to keep his dog under control. Weber filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the doctrine of the primary assumption of the risk. He argued that Wolf had assumed the risk of her accident by walking her dog on a trail where dogs could be unleashed. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and ruled that the doctrine of the primary assumption of the risk applied to off-leash dog trails. The court also dismissed her negligence per se claim, ruling that it did not abrogate the doctrine of the primary assumption of the risk. Wolf appealed.

Issue: Whether Wolf’s claims for negligence and negligence per se were barred under the doctrine of the primary assumption of the risk?

Wolf argued that the doctrine of the primary assumption of the risk did not apply to her accident even though she was walking her dog in an area in which dogs were allowed to be unleashed. She argued that the East Bay Mun. Code § 801.3 abrogated the doctrine because it only allowed dogs to be unleashed if they were under their owners’ control. Weber argued that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine did apply since Wolf chose to walk her dog on an off-leash trail where dogs were likely to encounter each other and run.

Rule: Under the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, people do not owe a duty of care to others to protect them from the inherent risks of dangerous activities.

Weber argued that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applies to people who choose to walk their dogs on off-leash dog-walking trails. Since the areas allow dog owners to have their dogs off of leashes, Weber argued that their owners do not have a duty to protect others on the trails from the risk of injury from their dogs. Wolf argued that dog owners still have a duty to control their dogs even when they are not on a leash, so the primary assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply.

Analysis

In California, dog owners are strictly liable when their dogs bite others on public property or while the victims are lawfully present on private property. However, strict liability rules do not apply when dogs injure people in other ways. When someone is injured by a dog but is not bitten, the person will need to prove that the dog’s owner was negligent to recover damages. Proving dog owner negligence requires the victims to prove that the owners had a duty of care and that they breached the duty, resulting in injury and harm to the victims.[2] Since Wolf was not injured by a dog bite but was instead injured by being knocked down by a dog, she was required to prove that Weber was negligent instead of pursuing a strict liability claim for her injuries.

In considering whether the assumption of the risk doctrine applies to walking a dog on a leash-optional dog trail, the court began by noting that the doctrine has been applied to some recreational activities in addition to sports. While the doctrine is a complete defense against claims, it does not bar recovery when the injury occurs because of a risk that is not inherent in the activity. Courts have the power to determine which risks are an inherent part of different activities. The court then reviewed East Bay Mun. Code § 801.3 to consider whether choosing to walk on the leash-optional trail meant that Wolf assumed the risk of being injured by a running dog.[3]

Under § 801.3, dog owners are allowed to walk their dogs on the trail without a leash. However, the owners must have a leash available for the dog and must keep the dog under control at all times. The ordinance provides examples of when a dog is under its owner’s control, including coming back when called and when the owner has the dog within his or her sight. A dog is not considered to be under an owner’s control when it injures a person directly or indirectly by its activities or when they touch or jump on other people without their invitation. The court pointed out that the ordinance that allows dogs to be in the park without a leash also mandates that the owners must maintain control of their unleashed dogs at all times. It found that the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply to Wolf’s injuries.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. It also ordered that Wolf should recover her costs on appeal.

Get legal help from the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers

While California’s dog bite statute does not provide strict liability for injuries caused by dogs through activities other than biting, people may still recover damages if they can prove that the dogs’ owners were negligent. People who have been injured by dogs may want to get help from an experienced personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers. Call us today at 866.966.5240.

Sources

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/a157937.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-07-24-personal-injury-7f2aeed67b&utm_content=text-case-read-more-3

[2] https://www.victimslawyer.com/dog-bite-liability-claims.html

[3] https://www.ebparks.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23167

Factual and procedural background

For the fall 2008 semester, Damon Thompson enrolled in classes at the University of California-Los Angeles. Thompson began having problems almost immediately and suffered from paranoia and auditory hallucinations. Thompson complained multiple times to the residence director of his dormitory and to his professors about his beliefs that other students were verbally harassing and threatening him.

After Thompson made repeated claims that other students in his classes were calling him names and making threats, he was taken for an evaluation at a psychiatric hospital. While he was there, he was preliminarily diagnosed with possible schizophrenia and was referred for mental health services through UCLA’s CAPS program.

Thompson was diagnosed with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder by Nicole Green, a UCLA psychologist. Thompson reportedly told Green that he sometimes wanted to harm the students that he believed were talking about him. He also said that he heard voices coming through the walls of his dorm room that led him to believe that other students would shoot him.

Thompson had complained to his chemistry professor that other students in the class were disrupting his work and talking badly about him. He identified Katherine Rosen, a fellow student, as one of the people he believed were talking about him. On Oct. 8, 2009, Thompson suddenly attacked Rosen without warning in the chemistry lab, stabbing her in the chest and neck with a kitchen knife.

Rosen filed a lawsuit against UCLA and Nicole Green, alleging that the university owed her a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to her from Thompson. The university and Green filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the following:

• UCLA owed no duty of care to Rosen;
• If it did owe a duty of care, it did not breach it; and
• Governmental immunity shielded both UCLA and Green from liability.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that UCLA did owe a duty of care to Rosen because of the special relationship that colleges have with their students. UCLA filed an appeal, and a divided appeals court panel granted the motion for summary judgment. The court found that universities did not owe a duty of care to protect students from the criminal acts of third parties.

Rosen appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, which overturned the appeals court and ruled that universities do owe a duty of care to protect students from foreseeable acts of violence while they are engaged in curricular activities. The court left open the question of what standard of care applies and whether there were triable issues of fact remaining in Rosen’s case.

Issues: (1) What is the standard of care for a university’s duty to protect students from violence? (2) Did the evidence presented by both parties present issues of triable fact? (3) Was the university and its employees shielded from liability through governmental immunity?

The case was sent back from the California Supreme Court to the Cal. Court of Appeals to decide three issues. The first issue concerned what the applicable standard of care should be for universities. The court gave leave to the parties to argue the standard of care that should apply. The plaintiff argued that the reasonably prudent person standard under ordinary negligence claims should apply. The defendants argued that a narrower standard should apply that would only exist if a person had made a specific threat to harm a specific person. UCLA also argued that it did not breach its duty of care and that there were no remaining issues of triable fact. Finally, UCLA argued that even if it breached its duty, it was shielded from liability through governmental immunity.

Rules: (1) The standard of care for universities with respect to their duty to protect students from foreseeable harm is the reasonably prudent person standard. (2) Questions about whether a defendant breached its duty of care can only be decided as a matter of law in situations in which no reasonable jury could infer that the defendant was negligent. (3) Governmental immunity applies to decisions that are made in planning and the creation of policies but not to the implementation of those policies.

The Supreme Court found that universities do owe a duty of care to their students to protect them from reasonably foreseeable risks of violence that might happen during curricular activities. In general, determining whether a defendant breached his or her duty of care is normally a matter for a jury unless it is a rare case in which the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not rationally decide that the defendant breached the duty. Finally, the court examined the governmental immunity statutes as they applied to UCLA and to Green.

Analysis

Both parties submitted supplemental briefs concerning the standard of care that they thought should apply to universities. The defense argued that the court should apply a limited standard to universities and that the duty should only apply when a third party had communicated a threat of imminent harm to a specific student rather than a general statement of a wish to injure others. The plaintiffs argued that the reasonably prudent person standard from ordinary negligence should apply, pointing out that it was the standard that was adopted for secondary schools.

The court looked at the Supreme Court’s decision. The defendant’s proposed standard would have effectively limited the Supreme Court’s ruling. The court instead found that the reasonably prudent person standard and ordinary negligence rules apply to universities.

Next, the court looked at whether there were triable issues of material fact for a jury to decide. UCLA argued that it had not breached its duty of care because it had acted in a reasonable manner to Thompson’s state of mental deterioration by transporting him to a psychiatric hospital, referring him to the university’s crisis response team, and providing him with mental health services at CAPs. Rosen argued that the university had breached its duty of care because it failed to refer his case to the university’s violence response team and to take other actions to protect the students.

UCLA also argued that it was protected under the governmental immunity statutes from liability even if it had breached its duty of care. Green likewise argued that she was protected under a different liability statute.

The court reviewed the evidence that had been presented by the plaintiff. After reviewing it, the court analyzed it under the ruling in Sprecher v. Adamson Companies, 30 Cal.3d 358 (1981). In that case, the court held that summary judgment is only appropriate in cases in which a reasonable jury could not rationally infer that the defendants were negligent. The court found that a jury could infer that UCLA was negligent and had breached its duty in light of the evidence and expert opinions that Rosen had presented.

Finally, in looking at the governmental immunity statutes, the court found that governmental immunity would only apply to UCLA if Rosen had argued that the university was negligent in planning or drafting its policies. However, she was arguing about the implementation of those policies, so governmental immunity did not apply to the university. However, the court found that Green was immune under a different statute.

Conclusion

The appeals court granted the motion for summary judgment as to Green, but it remanded the remaining issues back to the trial court for trial. The case will proceed on the issue of whether the university violated its duty of care to Rosen.

Contact an attorney

If you were injured in an attack on a university campus, you may have legal rights. It is important for you to talk about what happened to you with an experienced personal injury attorney in Los Angeles. Call The Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat today for a free and confidential case analysis. If you have questions, our personal injury resource page might have further information you may find useful.

Sources

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2018/b259424a.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-12-07-personal-injury-540c234760&utm_content=text-case-read-more-4 https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/sprecher-v-adamson-companies-28258