Los Angeles is one of the most renter-heavy cities in America. More than 60 percent of Angelenos rent their homes — a higher share than almost any other major U.S. city. That means millions of people spend the majority of their daily lives on property owned and controlled by someone else: a landlord, a property management company, or a large real estate investment trust with dozens of buildings across the county.

Most of the time, that arrangement works. But when a landlord cuts corners on maintenance, ignores repair requests, or simply fails to keep a building in safe condition, the people who pay the price are the tenants. And that price can be severe.

Slip and fall accidents are among the most common — and most seriously injurious — incidents that occur in Los Angeles apartment complexes every year. A broken stair tread in a dimly lit stairwell. A slippery lobby floor that management has known about for weeks and done nothing about. A cracked concrete walkway in the parking area that has been reported and ignored. A handrail that pulls away from the wall when you put your weight on it.

These are not freak accidents. They are foreseeable, preventable injuries that happen when landlords fail to meet their legal obligations to the people who live in and visit their buildings.

If you were hurt in a slip and fall at a Los Angeles apartment complex — whether as a tenant, a guest, or a visitor — you may have a valid premises liability claim. A skilled Los Angeles slip and fall attorney can evaluate whether your landlord’s negligence caused your injury and fight to recover the full compensation you deserve.

This guide explains everything you need to know: the governing law, what you must prove, where these accidents most frequently happen, how damages are calculated, and the critical steps you must take immediately to protect your claim.

The Scope of the Problem: Slip and Falls in LA Apartment Buildings

Slip, trip, and fall accidents are not minor inconveniences. They are the leading cause of emergency room visits in the United States and account for a significant share of serious personal injury claims filed in California courts every year.

In apartment complexes specifically, common areas — lobbies, stairwells, hallways, laundry rooms, and parking structures — account for approximately 40 percent of all slip and fall claims. Wet floors from unaddressed leaks are the single most frequently cited hazard. Premises liability filings in California surged 15 percent in 2024, driven in large part by aging multifamily housing stock where needed repairs have been deferred for years.

Los Angeles’s rental housing landscape makes the problem particularly acute. A large portion of the city’s apartment buildings are decades old, constructed before modern safety codes, and managed by owners whose attention to upkeep varies enormously. In neighborhoods across South LA, East LA, Koreatown, Hollywood, and the San Fernando Valley, chronic maintenance neglect is a documented and persistent problem. When millions of tenants navigate the same worn staircases and crumbling parking surfaces day after day, serious injuries become inevitable.

When that injury happens to you, the law is on your side — but only if you act quickly and strategically.

California Law: What Your Landlord Owes You

The legal foundation for apartment complex slip and fall claims is premises liability law, rooted in California Civil Code Section 1714. This statute imposes a legal “duty of care” on all property owners — including landlords — toward everyone who lawfully enters their property. That includes tenants, guests, delivery workers, maintenance personnel, and any other authorized visitor.

Under Civil Code §1714, a property owner “is responsible to others for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property.” This is not aspirational language — it is an enforceable legal obligation. Landlords cannot indefinitely defer repairs, ignore reported hazards, or escape liability by claiming ignorance of conditions they should have discovered through routine inspection.

California courts have reinforced this duty through the implied warranty of habitability (Civil Code §1941), which requires landlords to maintain rental units and all common areas in a condition fit for safe human occupation. In practice, this means:

• Structurally sound floors, staircases, and railings
• Adequate lighting throughout all common areas
• Level, well-maintained walking surfaces in hallways, courtyards, and parking areas
• Prompt repair of reported hazards
• Proactive inspection to identify and address dangerous conditions before someone is hurt

Critically, this duty extends to everyone lawfully on the property — not just paying tenants. If you were injured while visiting a friend at their apartment complex, you have the exact same legal standing to pursue a claim against the property owner.

The Four Elements You Must Prove

Not every fall at an apartment complex gives rise to a viable personal injury claim. To hold a landlord liable for a slip and fall, California law requires establishing four specific elements:

1. Duty of Care

Under California Civil Code §1714, landlords owe a duty of care to all lawful visitors on their property. If you were a tenant, a guest, or another authorized person when you fell, this element is generally straightforward to establish.

2. Breach of Duty

This is where the substantive legal work happens. You must show that the landlord failed to meet the standard of reasonable care — that they knew, or should have known, about the dangerous condition and failed to repair it or provide adequate warning within a reasonable time.

Two legal theories support this element:

Actual notice means the landlord was specifically aware of the hazard. This is established through prior written repair requests, complaints from other tenants, maintenance work orders that were generated but never completed, or direct email and text exchanges with property management.

Constructive notice means the condition existed for so long, or was so obvious, that a reasonably attentive landlord conducting normal property inspections would have discovered it. A hazard that has been visible and unaddressed for 30 or more days typically satisfies the constructive notice standard under California case law.

3. Causation

There must be a direct causal link between the landlord’s negligence and your injury. The dangerous condition — not some independent factor — must be what caused your fall and resulting harm.

4. Damages

You must have suffered actual, documentable losses. In slip and fall cases this means physical injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The more thoroughly documented your injuries and their long-term impact, the stronger this element becomes.

The Most Common Hazards in Los Angeles Apartment Complexes

Understanding what conditions most frequently give rise to slip and fall claims helps you recognize when your landlord may have crossed the line from negligent to liable.

Wet and Slippery Floors

Water is the leading cause of apartment complex slip and falls. Leaking pipes, overflowing communal laundry machines, water tracked in near building entrances during rain, and unaddressed spills in lobby areas all create hazards — especially on tile, polished concrete, or linoleum floors common in older Los Angeles buildings.

During California’s rainy season, poorly drained walkways and building entrances become consistently dangerous. A landlord who is aware of a recurring leak and fails to fix it — or who fails to address wet conditions at a building entrance during rain events — has created the exact conditions California premises liability law was designed to remedy.

Defective Staircases and Handrails

Staircase accidents produce some of the most serious slip and fall injuries. A fall on stairs involves multiple impacts, greater force, and a much higher likelihood of catastrophic injury — to the head, spine, hips, and extremities — than a fall on a flat surface.

Common staircase defects in Los Angeles apartment buildings include:

• Broken or uneven stair treads
• Missing or worn non-slip surfaces on steps
• Loose, wobbly, or entirely absent handrails
• Inadequate lighting in stairwells
• Doors that swing unexpectedly open onto staircase landings

A written complaint to a property manager about a wobbly handrail that went unrepaired — followed by an injury on that same staircase — is among the clearest examples of documented landlord negligence that supports a successful claim.

Inadequate Lighting

Poor lighting is both a direct safety hazard and powerful evidence of negligence. Dimly lit hallways, stairwells, parking structures, and outdoor walkways prevent residents from seeing hazards they could otherwise avoid. Los Angeles building codes set minimum lighting requirements for common areas in residential buildings. A landlord who allows lighting to remain broken or inadequate — particularly in high-traffic areas used at night — is failing a clearly defined legal obligation.

Cracked and Uneven Outdoor Surfaces

Parking lots, walkways, pool decks, and courtyards are frequently the site of slip and fall claims in Los Angeles apartment complexes. Cracked concrete, raised or sunken pavement, broken asphalt, and poorly maintained drainage systems all create tripping hazards entirely within the landlord’s control to fix.

These defects develop gradually, making constructive notice easy to establish. A crack that has been widening for months, or a raised walkway edge that multiple tenants have reported, represents precisely the kind of known, unaddressed hazard that exposes landlords to significant liability.

Structural and Safety Failures

Elevator malfunctions, broken gates, nonfunctioning security doors, and deteriorating balcony railings can all lead to serious injuries. Collapsing balconies and falling ceiling materials are among the most catastrophic examples of deferred maintenance. California law also requires landlords to maintain functioning smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors; when those systems fail and injuries result, the landlord’s liability can be substantial.

Where Do These Accidents Happen Most Often?

While falls can occur anywhere on a property, certain locations account for a disproportionate share of serious injuries in Los Angeles apartment complexes:

• Stairwells and interior hallways — the most frequent location, due to hard surfaces, variable lighting, and concentrated daily foot traffic
• Parking structures and surface lots — oil slicks, cracked pavement, and inadequate lighting are recurring hazards
• Laundry rooms — water accumulates around machines and floor drains
• Building entrances and lobbies — especially hazardous during and after rain
• Pool and recreation areas — wet decking and slippery surfaces around water features
• Exterior courtyards and walkways — subject to cracking, uneven settling, and drainage failures over time

What Compensation Can You Recover?

When a landlord’s negligence causes a slip and fall injury, California law entitles you to recover a comprehensive range of damages. As experienced Los Angeles slip and fall attorneys, we work to ensure every category of loss is fully documented and aggressively pursued:

Medical expenses — All past and future costs of treatment: emergency care, hospitalization, surgeries, imaging, physical therapy, chiropractic care, prescription medications, and any ongoing treatment your injuries require.

Lost wages — Income you were unable to earn during recovery. If your injuries have permanently reduced your earning capacity, you can also recover for that diminished future income.

Pain and suffering — California imposes no cap on pain and suffering damages in personal injury cases. Physical pain, emotional distress, anxiety, disrupted sleep, PTSD, and reduced enjoyment of life are all compensable — and in serious cases, they can represent the largest portion of the total recovery.

Property damage — Personal items damaged in the fall, such as eyeglasses, a phone, or other belongings.

Punitive damages — In cases involving egregious landlord conduct — repeated notifications of a hazard, deliberate inaction — California courts may award punitive damages beyond your actual losses, designed to punish the defendant and deter future negligence.

California operates under a pure comparative fault system, meaning you can recover compensation even if you were partially at fault. Your recovery is reduced proportionally — but not eliminated. Even if an insurer argues you were distracted or wearing inappropriate footwear, you can still obtain meaningful compensation.

Average slip and fall settlements in California rental properties range from $100,000 to over $1 million depending on injury severity. A 2024 Los Angeles County jury awarded $58.3 million in a catastrophic premises liability case — a clear reminder that California courts take these claims seriously when the evidence is strong.

The Most Common Landlord Defenses — and How to Overcome Them

Expect resistance. Landlords and their insurance carriers do not concede liability without a fight. Understanding the most common defenses helps you and your Los Angeles slip and fall attorney prepare effectively:

“The hazard was open and obvious.” The most frequently used defense in California slip and fall cases — the argument that the condition was so visible a reasonable person should have seen and avoided it. California courts have pushed back on this repeatedly. A visible hazard does not relieve a landlord of the duty to fix it. Expert biomechanical witnesses can often demonstrate that the condition was far less detectable than the landlord claims.

“We had no notice of the hazard.” This shifts the burden to establishing actual or constructive notice through written repair requests, maintenance logs, prior tenant complaints, and evidence that the condition existed long enough to be found through reasonable inspection.

“You were partially at fault.” Insurance adjusters routinely attempt to blame the injured party — claiming distraction, improper footwear, or recklessness. Under California’s pure comparative fault rule, partial fault reduces your recovery but does not defeat it. An experienced premises liability attorney knows how to anticipate and counter these arguments.

“Your injury wasn’t caused by the fall.” Any gap between the accident and when you first sought medical treatment becomes ammunition for insurers challenging causation. This is precisely why immediate medical evaluation is so important — even when you feel your injuries are minor.

The Slumlord Problem in Los Angeles

Not every apartment complex slip and fall is an isolated maintenance oversight. In many cases across Los Angeles, the problem runs far deeper. Some landlords managing large, older buildings in rent-stabilized neighborhoods have documented histories of ignoring habitability complaints, deferring maintenance for years, and repeating the same negligent patterns across multiple properties and multiple tenants.

When a landlord has been notified of dangerous conditions repeatedly, by multiple tenants, and has consistently failed to act, the case for liability strengthens significantly — and the potential for punitive damages becomes real. California law provides specific remedies for tenants dealing with these chronic patterns of neglect.

If your injury occurred in a building with a history of deferred maintenance and unanswered complaints, our Los Angeles slumlord and tenant injury attorneys can evaluate whether that history supports a broader and more aggressive claim strategy.

Serious Injuries From Apartment Slip and Falls

Falls in apartment complexes can cause life-altering injuries. The severity depends on the surface, the height of a staircase, the victim’s age and health, and the specific mechanics of the fall — but the injuries we regularly see in these cases include:

Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) — Head impacts on hard floors or staircase edges can cause concussions, subdural hematomas, and more serious brain trauma. TBIs are frequently underdiagnosed immediately after a fall; prompt medical evaluation is critical.

Spinal cord and back injuries — Staircase falls in particular can cause compression fractures, herniated discs, and in the most severe cases, partial or complete paralysis. These injuries typically demand surgery, extended rehabilitation, and long-term medical management. Our Los Angeles spine injury attorneys understand the full medical and financial scope of these cases and ensure that all future care costs are included in your claim.

Hip fractures — Among the most devastating fall injuries, particularly for older adults. Hip fractures frequently require surgery and can trigger serious secondary complications. Given that older adults represent a significant share of LA’s renter population, these injuries are tragically common in apartment complex slip and falls.

Wrist, ankle, and clavicle fractures — Often sustained as a victim attempts to break a fall. Many require surgery and weeks of physical therapy before function is restored.

Knee and shoulder injuries — Ligament tears, meniscus damage, and rotator cuff injuries are frequently seen in fall cases and often require surgical intervention.

The long-term economic toll of serious slip and fall injuries — ongoing medical treatment, lost income, in-home care needs, and permanent limitations on daily activity — can be staggering. A thorough legal claim accounts for all of these future losses, not just the bills you have accumulated so far.

What to Do Immediately After a Slip and Fall at Your Apartment

The actions you take in the hours and days following a fall can be decisive. Here is exactly what to do:

1. Report the incident to management in writing. Notify your property manager or landlord immediately and in writing — email or text is ideal because it creates a timestamped record. State the date, time, and exact location of the fall. Never rely on a verbal conversation alone. Keep copies of everything.

2. Photograph the hazard before it is repaired. Take photos and video of the exact condition that caused your fall — the broken step, the wet floor, the cracked walkway, the missing handrail — before the landlord has any opportunity to address it. If the hazard is repaired within days of your fall, that prompt response can itself serve as evidence of the landlord’s prior awareness of the dangerous condition.

3. Identify and collect witness information. If anyone witnessed your fall or is aware of the hazardous condition — a neighbor, another visitor, a maintenance worker — get their names and contact information immediately.

4. Seek medical attention the same day. Do not wait, even if you feel your injuries are minor at first. Many serious injuries — particularly to the spine, knees, and head — do not reach full severity until 24 to 72 hours after the incident. A same-day medical record establishes the temporal connection between your fall and your injuries that is essential for your claim. Any delay gives insurers grounds to argue the injury was not serious or was caused by something unrelated.

5. Preserve all prior repair requests. If you had previously reported the hazard to your landlord — by email, text, written request, or through a maintenance portal — preserve every record of that communication. Prior notice is among the most powerful tools in a premises liability case.

6. Do not give a recorded statement to the insurance company. The property owner’s insurer may contact you quickly after the accident. You are not required to provide a recorded statement, and doing so without legal counsel is a significant risk. Insurance adjusters are trained to ask questions designed to elicit statements that minimize your claim.

7. Contact a Los Angeles slip and fall attorney as soon as possible. The sooner you have legal representation, the better your chances of preserving critical evidence, meeting all deadlines, and achieving a full and fair recovery. Surveillance footage gets overwritten. Hazards get repaired. Witnesses become harder to locate. Time genuinely matters.

How Long Do You Have to File a Claim?

California gives you two years from the date of your injury to file a personal injury lawsuit under Code of Civil Procedure §335.1. Missing this deadline almost always means permanently losing your right to compensation.

Two important exceptions can significantly shorten this window:

Government-owned housing — If you were injured in a public housing complex or any property owned by a government entity, you must file a formal government tort claim within six months of the injury before you can file a lawsuit. This shorter deadline catches many victims off guard.

Injured minors — If the injured person was under 18 at the time of the fall, the statute of limitations is generally paused until they turn 18, giving them two years from that birthday to file.

Do not wait until the deadline looms to consult an attorney. Evidence deteriorates, video footage is routinely overwritten within 30 to 90 days, and witnesses become progressively harder to reach. The earlier you act, the stronger your case.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue my landlord if I fell inside my own unit? Possibly. Inside individual units, landlords are generally not expected to conduct regular inspections. However, if you notified your landlord of a hazard in your unit — a broken floor tile, a leaking pipe creating a slippery surface — and they failed to repair it within a reasonable time, that failure can support a premises liability claim. Documented prior notice is the key.

What if I was a visitor rather than a tenant? Your rights are the same. California premises liability law protects all lawful visitors on a property, not just tenants. If you were injured visiting someone at their apartment complex, you can pursue a claim against the property owner.

Can I still recover if I was partly at fault? Yes. California’s pure comparative fault system allows recovery even when you share some responsibility. Your award is reduced proportionally — but not eliminated.

What if the landlord fixed the hazard right after my fall? That can actually help your case. Prompt post-accident repairs are frequently treated by California courts as evidence that the landlord was aware the condition was dangerous before the accident occurred.

How much is my case worth? Every case is different. The value depends on the severity of your injuries, your medical costs, your lost income, the strength of the negligence evidence, and available insurance coverage. Cases range from tens of thousands of dollars for moderate injuries to seven figures for catastrophic or permanent harm.

Why Choose Our Los Angeles Premises Liability Attorneys

Apartment complex slip and fall claims involve legal and practical complexities that make skilled representation genuinely important:

• Identifying and preserving evidence before it disappears
• Establishing actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
• Navigating an insurance company working against your interests from day one
• Countering comparative fault arguments designed to reduce your recovery
• Accurately valuing future medical costs, lost earning capacity, and non-economic losses
• Knowing when to negotiate and when to litigate

Our Los Angeles premises liability attorneys at Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC have spent over 25 years representing injured tenants and visitors throughout Los Angeles and California. We understand how landlords and their insurers defend these cases — and we know how to build the evidence-driven claims that achieve real results.

We handle all premises liability cases on a contingency fee basis — you pay no attorney fees unless and until we win your case. Your initial consultation is completely free.

Contact a Los Angeles Slip and Fall Attorney Today

If you were injured in a slip and fall at a Los Angeles apartment complex, do not wait. Evidence disappears. Deadlines approach. The landlord’s insurer is already working to minimize your claim.

Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC Los Angeles | Glendale | West Covina | Torrance | and throughout Southern California Call: 866-966-5240 | 310-592-0445 Free Consultation — Se Habla Español — No Fee Until We Win

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Please consult a qualified California personal injury attorney regarding the specific facts of your situation.

Factual and procedural background

Luis Gonzalez was employed as a window washer during the 1990s for a company called Beverly Hills Window Washing. During that time, he regularly cleaned a skylight window for John R. Mathis. Later, Gonzalez started his own window washing business, advertising that his company specialized in cleaning windows and skylights in hard-to-reach areas. Mathis hired Gonzalez and his company to clean his skylight regularly beginning in 2007.

Mathis’s home was a one-story residence with a flat sand and gravel roof. He had built a parapet on the roof to hide air conditioning ducts and pipes for aesthetic purposes. Over the years, the condition of the roof deteriorated. Gonzalez told Mathis that the roof needed repair, but Mathis never repaired it. The parapet wall was 20 inches away from the edge of the skylight, and Gonzalez testified he regularly walked across it while cleaning the skylight.

On Aug. 1, 2012, Gonzalez and his employees were cleaning the skylight. Mathis’s housekeeper asked Gonzalez to climb up to the roof and tell his employees to use less water because it was dripping down inside of the house. Gonzalez climbed up the ladder to the roof and walked where his employees were working to tell them to use less water. When he did, he slipped on loose sand and gravel and fell off of the roof, suffering serious injuries.

Gonzalez did not have workers’ compensation insurance. He filed a lawsuit against Mathis, arguing that Mathis’s failure to repair the roof resulted in his injuries and losses.

Mathis filed a motion for summary judgment. He argued that under the Privette doctrine, a hirer of an independent contractor is not liable for injuries to the contractor or his or her employees while they are working on the job and that an exception to the doctrine did not apply. Gonzalez testified that there were several safety hazards present on the roof that led to his accident and injuries, including the lack of repair, the narrowness of the path between the parapet wall and the skylight, the lack of areas to tie safety harnesses, and the lack of a guardrail along the edge of the roof.

The trial court granted Mathis’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Privette doctrine precluded finding liability against Mathis as a matter of law since the hazardous condition was open and obvious and that Mathis did not retain control over the safety of Gonzalez or his employees while they were working. Gonzalez filed an appeal.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that a third exception to the Privette doctrine existed when a property owner knows about obvious hazards in the working area of the independent contractor and fails to take reasonable steps to correct them. Mathis filed a writ of certiorari to the California Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue: Whether an exception to the Privette doctrine exists when a hirer fails to take reasonable steps to correct an open and obvious hazard that cannot be avoided in the area where the independent contractor works?

The Court of Appeal relied on dicta in the Supreme Court’s decision in Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 37 Cal.4th 659 (2005). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a landowner can be liable to an independent contractor when the contractor is injured by concealed hazards that the contractor did not know about and reasonably could not have discovered.[2] In the dicta, the court had stated that the duty of safety is delegated to the independent contractor when the contractor can take reasonable safety precautions around known safety hazards. The Court of Appeal found that this meant, by corollary, that the hirer retains control over the safety and thus can be found liable when there is a known hazard in the area where the contractor is working that the hirer fails to take reasonable measures to fix when the independent contractor cannot take any reasonable steps to correct it.

Rule: Under the Privette doctrine, the hirer of an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries to the contractor or the contractor’s employees while they are working unless the hirer retains control of the safety conditions of the work environment.

In Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), the California Supreme Court held that the hirer of an independent contractor is generally not liable for injuries that happen to the contractor or the contractor’s employees while they are working.[3] There are a couple of exceptions to this general rule, including when the hirer affirmatively contributes to the dangerous condition or does not delegate the handling of safety precautions to the independent contractor. Gonzalez argued that the doctrine only applies when the independent contractor is hired to repair the known hazard or when the contractor creates the hazard when performing the work for which he or she is hired. Mathis argued that a property owner is not liable when a lawfully present person is injured by an open and obvious hazard for which the owner has no duty to warn the contractor and that Gonzalez’s claim was barred by the Privette doctrine.

Analysis

The California Supreme Court first analyzed the Privette doctrine and its progeny. It noted that in Privette, the court held that a landowner is not vicariously liable for injuries to an independent contractor it has hired to perform inherently dangerous work on his or her property.[4] A contractor’s employees are instead protected when they are injured by the independent contractor’s workers’ compensation policy.

In cases coming after Privette, the Supreme Court found that an exception can exist when the landowner retains control over the safety precautions rather than delegating them to the independent contractor and its retention of the control affirmatively contributed to the contractor’s injuries.[5] It also found that an exception exists when a landowner knows or reasonably should have known about the existence of a concealed hazard that the independent contractor does not know about and could not reasonably have known when the landowner fails to warn him or her.

The court then considered known hazards and how they are treated under premises liability law.[6] In general, a landowner will not be liable to a lawfully present person who is injured by an open and obvious hazard that a reasonable person would have taken steps to avoid. Gonzalez argued that since he could not have taken any reasonable steps to avoid the open and obvious hazards on the roof, Mathis should be liable. He also argued that Mathis had a duty to repair the conditions on the roof and failed to do so, so he should be held liable for Gonzalez’s injuries when he fell off of the roof because of the dangerous conditions.

When the court applied the previous decisions to the facts of Gonzalez’s case, it found that Mathis had not retained control of the safety conditions of the work area and did not affirmatively contribute to his accident or injuries. Even though Gonzalez did not have workers’ compensation insurance and had no avenue of recovery, the court found that did not mean that Mathis should be responsible. Instead, the court pointed out that Gonzalez was required to carry workers’ compensation insurance for his employees under the law, and that he could have opted to cover himself with the coverage if he had complied with the law.

It also considered whether an exception should apply for situations in which an independent contractor or his or her employee is injured by a known hazard when it was not possible to take reasonable safety measures to avoid it. It noted that while Gonzalez had testified that he had informed Mathis of the dangerous conditions on the roof, he did not tell Mathis that he could not work under those conditions and instead continued to regularly clean the skylight.

Conclusion

The court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision and remanded the case with an order for the Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court’s decision granting the motion for summary judgment.

Consult with a personal injury attorney

If you have been injured while working on someone else’s property, you should talk to an experienced personal injury attorney to determine your legal options and potential recovery sources. Call the Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC at 866.966.5240.

Resources

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2021/s247677.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2021-08-20-personal-injury-dfc7f3f039&utm_content=text-case-title-11

[2] https://casetext.com/case/kinsman-v-unocal-corp-2

[3] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/5/689.html

[4] https://www.victimslawyer.com/construction-injuries.html

[5] https://www.californiaaccidentattorneysblog.com/california-construction-site-accident-claim-presents-issues-regarding-liability/

[6] https://www.victimslawyer.com/premises-liability.html

Property owners and occupiers in Los Angeles have a duty to maintain their premises in reasonably safe conditions to protect lawful visitors from being injured. This duty can sometimes extend to the adjacent, publicly-owned property when the property owner has exercised control over it in some way and has created or contributed to the dangerous condition. In Lopez v. City of Los Angeles, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B288396, the appeals court considered a case in which it was unclear whether a property owner had exerted control over a portion of a city-owned sidewalk that abutted against its driveway and caused the plaintiff to suffer serious injuries.[1]

Factual and procedural background

Jose Luis Lopez, Jr. was walking in the rain in Feb. 2014. When he came to the driveway leading to Wally’s Wine & Spirits, Lopez stepped in a pothole that was filled with rainwater. This caused his ankle to dislocate, and he tore three ligaments and broke two bones. Wally’s Wine & Spirits leases the facility to store wine for restaurants and a liquor store. Traffic in the parking lot is limited to delivery vans and vehicles of customers who pay to store wine in a temperature-controlled room. The property is managed by the Northern Trust Bank of California and is owned by the Marvin A. Kahn Deceased Trust.

Under the lease, Wally’s Wine & Spirits is obligated to keep the premises in good repair, including the driveways. The main driveway is the width of the three parking spaces in front of the building and slopes to a lip where it meets the gutters. The concrete in this area also doubles as a sidewalk. The pothole that Lopez stepped in was located where the gutters and the lip of the driveway meet. The gutters, sidewalk, and sloping portion of the driveway are owned by the City of Los Angeles.

The pothole was created by water running through the gutters combined with the vehicle traffic on the driveway. When Lopez was injured, he was walking to his car on Cotner Avenue from a repair shop where he worked nearby. He filed a lawsuit against Wally’s Wine & Spirits and the City of Los Angeles in Oct. 2014.

The case went to a jury trial, and the jury returned a verdict in Lopez’s favor for $3,094,972.42. The jury found that the city was 75% at fault and Wally’s was 25% at fault for the deteriorated condition where the pothole was located. Wally’s and the city filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Wally’s argued that the plaintiff had not presented evidence showing that Wally’s had exerted control over the area where the pothole was located and that Wally’s was not negligent because the city had notice of the pothole and had not repaired it. The court granted Wally’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denied the city’s JNOV motion and its motion for a new trial. Both Wally’s and the city filed appeals. The city had entered into a settlement agreement with Lopez, and Lopez assigned his right to appeal and to enforce the judgment against Wally’s to the city through that agreement.

Issue: Whether Wally’s premises and its obligations to maintain them extended to the portion of the driveway that met the city-controlled gutters?

The city argued that the court erred when it granted Wally’s Wine & Spirits’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Wally’s argued that the court was correct when it granted its motion for a JNOV because the plaintiff did not present substantial evidence that the business had exerted control over the portion of the driveway where the pothole was located. Since the city owned that portion of the driveway, Wally’s argued that it was not negligent in failing to fix the pothole.

Rule: Property owners and lessees owe a duty of care to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition for visitors.

Slip, trip, and fall claims are among the most common types of premises liability cases that are filed in California.[2] Premises liability cases turn on theories of negligence. Property owners owe a duty of care to keep their premises in a reasonably safe condition for people who lawfully visit their properties. In this case, the question concerned how far that duty of care extended and whether the fact that the pothole was located at the side of the driveway meant that Wally’s was negligent in failing to repair that section even though it was owned by the city. The city argued that Wally’s was negligent in its failure to repair the pothole and should not have been granted the JNOV by the court.

Analysis

The appeals court began by reviewing the law concerning a judgment notwithstanding a verdict. A JNOV is a dismissal of a claim or a portion of a claim against a defendant when a court finds that there was not enough evidence to support the jury’s finding of liability as to one or more defendants. In a slip-and-fall case, the property owner or lessee may be liable when it fails to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.[3]

The court first considered when a property owner or lessee will be responsible for maintaining the publicly-owned property that abuts up against its property. Under California law, a property owner acts in a reasonable way to maintain the safety of its property when it acts reasonably in reaction to the probability that someone might be injured by using the property. The court then considered whether that duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition extended to hazards on the property of others that abut against the owner’s property.

However, the court pointed out that a landowner generally does not have a duty to correct hazards on adjacent property, including a publicly-owned sidewalk. There is an exception to the general rule when a property owner has exerted control over the adjacent publicly-owned property. To exert control, the owner must have taken affirmative action to maintain that area. If no affirmative action has been taken, the property owner or occupier will not have exerted control over the publicly-owned adjacent property and will not have a duty to maintain it. Affirmative action can also be found when the property owner creates the hazard. This can be caused by altering the property where the hazard is located to cause it to be used for a distinct purpose.

In analyzing whether Wally’s Wine & Spirits created the hazard or contributed to it, the court reviewed the evidence that had been presented at trial. It found that Wally’s took no affirmative action to repair the pothole and did nothing to affirmatively alter the area where it was located. Because of this, the court found that Wally’s had not exercised control over the city’s property.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant Wally’s Wine & Spirits’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It ordered the city to pay Wally’s costs on appeal.

Get help from the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers

If you have suffered serious injuries in a slip-and-fall accident on the property of a business or public entity, you may need legal help. The experienced injury attorneys at the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers can review your case and explain the options that might be available to you. Call us today for a free consultation at 866.966.5240.

Sources

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/b288396.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-10-02-personal-injury-84756aab2e&utm_content=text-case-read-more-3

[2] https://www.victimslawyer.com/premises-liability.html

[3] https://www.victimslawyer.com/slip-and-fall.htm

Slip and fall accidents are not always but, often times the result of negligence on the part of a residential or commercial property owner. They occur much more frequently than they should especially in retail stores, hotels, hospitals or nursing homes, or even when you are a guest at another person’s home. If you sustain injuries as a result of a slip and fall accident and the cause of your fall can be attributed to some action or inaction on the part of the premises owner, it may be best to obtain legal advice from an experienced California personal injury attorney who is familiar with the law and the requirements to hold the negligent party responsible for payment of medical expenses, lost wages and to compensate the victim for emotional trauma and physical pain. Personal injuries can be a result of a number of reasons, such as spilled chemicals or liquids, improperly waxed floors, or obstructions in the walking area, dangerously slick floor materials such as certain types of commercial-grade tile and many other reasons. Many types of injuries may occur as a result of a slip and fall injury and to get the compensation that you need, it is important to have a lawyer that is experienced in handling personal injury cases.

Some of the common reasons that people are injured in a slip and fall accident are due to factors that the owner or management were not responsible with their handling, such as:

• Lack of posted warning signs or placards
• Over waxing, over polishing floors
• Obstructions on the walk space areas
• Damaged rugs or carpeting
• Worn or broken mats and entry way items
• Broken or damaged stairs or hand rails
• Uncleaned spills in walkways that can cause the floor to be slick
• Negligently designed or constructed property
• Natural conditions like ice and rain when the proper procedures are not taken to warn or remedy about the condition
• Uneven flooring
• Parking lot defects such as potholes and uneven pavement
• Poor or inadequate lighting to illuminate the walking surface

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were over 15,000 people that died as a result of falls within a one year period. Furthermore, falls are the leading cause of non fatal injury in the United States and account for more than 780,000 hospitalizations and better than 11.5 million minor injuries which do not require hospitalization. Many of these injuries are caused by acts of negligence by property owners and managers.

Of those that are injured from slip and fall accidents, many sustain fractured bones, Traumatic Brain Injury, head injuries and back injuries. If you are injured from a fall, it is very important that you immediately seek medical attention. There may be injuries that cause serious medical problems at a later time that you are unaware of at the time of the fall or shortly following the incident. For example, falls often cause trauma to the spine that requires not just x-rays but more detailed studies like Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to determine the existence and severity of the injury. Moreover, if the injury is an act of negligence on the part of a property owner or manager, having medical documentation will provide professional evidence to substantiate your case if you so choose to file a claim for injury settlement compensation.

Steven M. Sweat, APC is a personal injury law firm with over 20 years of experience representing the victims of slip and fall incidents in all types of venues throughout Southern California. We have team of investigators and forensic engineers who can do site inspections at the area in question and determine of there were any code violations or other types of negligent maintenance practices that may have solely caused or contributed to the spill. We also have a team of some of the highest rated trial lawyers in California who have decades of experience litigation and trying slip and fall cases. If you or a loved one has been injured or killed due to slipping and falling in or around a commercial or residential property anywhere in California, we would be glad to provide a free consultation and obtain facts to determine if legal action may lie to recoup damages. Our injury helpline is open 24 hours a day / 7 days a week toll free at 866-966-5240. Call today to speak with an experience attorney willing to help!

Recent Success Stories: We recently represented the family of an elderly gentleman who slipped on black ice in front of a retail store. The ice had been on the sidewalk for several days without any, meaningful attempts to remove it. Unfortunately, the victim slipped, fell face down on the hard concrete, and sustained significant internal bleeding, which results in his death. Our office was able to obtain compensation in the amount of $1,300,000 for the family of the victim, including his wife and children.