premises liability claim in California

2026Applicable Law “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court 13 (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) To prevail on a cause of action against a premises owner in a slip-and-fall case, there must be proof “ ‘ “that a dangerous condition existed, and that the defendant knew or should have known of it.” ’ ” (Kaney v. Custance (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 201 , 221.) Grocery store owners are not insurers of their patrons’ safety but do owe them a “duty to exercise rea

2024Premises Liability Law The elements of a premises liability claim are the same as those of a negligence claim: “a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “[L]andowners are required ‘to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’ [citation], and to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934 , 943–944; accord, Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1205 [“It is well established in California that althou

2026(Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 [“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same,” and include “a legal duty of care”]; C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 876-877 [duty is an element of a claim for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision]; Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1145 , 1165 [“there is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. [Citation.] ‘The tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element’

2026Analysis “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 ; see also Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 .) To prevail on her motion for summary judgment, Stewart, as the moving party, only needs “to ‘show[] that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established’ by the plaintiff. [Citation.] In other words, all that the defendant need do is to show that the plaintiff cannot establi

2026Analysis “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 ; see also Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 .) To prevail on her motion for summary judgment, Stewart, as the moving party, only needs “to ‘show[] that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established’ by the plaintiff. [Citation.] In other words, all that the defendant need do is to show that the plaintiff cannot establi

2025Because we conclude that plaintiffs cannot show the element of causation—an element required for a premises liability claim (see Castellon, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 998 )—we need not decide this question here.

2026“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.” (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134 ; accord, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162 (Alcaraz), Soto v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 168 , 177 (Soto).) 7 Plaintiffs refer to the parking lot

2026“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.” (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134 ; accord, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162 (Alcaraz), Soto v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 168 , 177 (Soto).) 7 Plaintiffs refer to the parking lot

2024Duty of care in the context of premises liability “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. [Citations.] Premises liability ‘“is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises”’; accordingly, ‘“mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.”’ [Citations.] But the duty arising from possession and control of property i

2021We held that the landowner could be liable if “the landowner knew, or should have known, of a latent or concealed preexisting hazardous condition on its property, the contractor did not know and could not have reasonably discovered this hazardous condition, and the landowner failed to warn the contractor about this condition.” (Kinsman, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 664 , fn. omitted.) We based our holding on the premises liability rule that a landowner has a duty to warn a visitor of a dangerous condition on the property “ ‘so that [the visitor], like the host, will be in a position to take special

2024Premises Liability Law The elements of a premises liability claim are the same as those of a negligence claim: “a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “[L]andowners are required ‘to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’ [citation], and to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934 , 943–944; accord, Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1205 [“It is well established in California that althou

2021“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) In general, “landowners are required ‘to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’ [citations], and to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 943-944 .) But landowners “who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolute

2024(Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927 .) “Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 (Stathoulis).) “In appropriate cases, the trial court may determine, and the appellate court may determine de novo, whether a given walkway defect was trivial as a matter of law. 11 [Citations.] ‘Where reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion—that there was no substantial risk of injury—the issue is a question

2022(Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 [“The law imposes no duty on a landowner—including a public entity—to repair trivial defects, or ‘to maintain [its property] in an absolutely perfect condition’”]; see also Ursino v. Big Boy Restaurants (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 394, 399 [“The rule which permits a court to determine ‘triviality’ as a matter of law rather than always submitting the issue to a jury provides a check valve 17 Furthermore, even if defendants were aware or should have been aware of the fire pit’s presence, there was no evidence defendants were on notice D

2024“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. 9 [Citations.] Premises liability ‘“is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises”’; accordingly, ‘“mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.”’ [Citation.] But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that app

2024“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. 9 [Citations.] Premises liability ‘“is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises”’; accordingly, ‘“mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.”’ [Citation.] But the duty arising from possession and control of property is adherence to the same standard of care that app

2021Duty of care “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 (Kesner); accord, Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 .) “Recovery in a negligence action depends as a threshold matter on whether the defendant had ‘“a duty to use due care toward an interest of [the plaintiff’s] that enjoys legal protection against unintentional invasion.”’” (Southern California Gas Leak Cases (2019) 7 Cal.5th 391, 397 ; acc

2020Duty of care “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and 14 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 17 proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 (Kesner); accord, Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 .) “Recovery in a negligence action depends as a threshold matter on whether the defendant had ‘“a duty to use due care toward an interest of [the plaintiff’s] that enjoys legal protection against unintentional invas

2024(Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927 .) “Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 (Stathoulis).) “In appropriate cases, the trial court may determine, and the appellate court may determine de novo, whether a given walkway defect was trivial as a matter of law. 11 [Citations.] ‘Where reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion—that there was no substantial risk of injury—the issue is a question

2021“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) In general, “landowners are required ‘to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’ [citations], and to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 943-944 .) But landowners “who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolute

2020Premises liability “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.” (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368 .) A predecessor landowner’s liability terminates “upon transfer of control, i.e., the doctrine of c

2020Premises liability “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “[T]he duty to take affirmative action for the protection of individuals coming upon the land is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.” (Sprecher v. Adamson Companies (1981) 30 Cal.3d 358, 368 .) A predecessor landowner’s liability terminates “upon transfer of control, i.e., the doctrine of c

2020Duty of care “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and 14 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 17 proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 (Kesner); accord, Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 .) “Recovery in a negligence action depends as a threshold matter on whether the defendant had ‘“a duty to use due care toward an interest of [the plaintiff’s] that enjoys legal protection against unintentional invas

2020Duty of care “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and 14 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Civil Code. 17 proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 (Kesner); accord, Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 .) “Recovery in a negligence action depends as a threshold matter on whether the defendant had ‘“a duty to use due care toward an interest of [the plaintiff’s] that enjoys legal protection against unintentional invas

2022(Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 110, 119 ; Lorenzen-Hughes v. MacElhenny, Levy & Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1688 ; Lewis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 692 .) Martin further contends that her premises liability cause of action included allegations that went beyond occupying and controlling the premises to state “a cause of action for general negligence for CFY’s negligent ‘implementing, constructing and outfitting’ the Juniper Apartments, exposing CFY to continuing liability to Martin.” We have already determined that, liberally construed, Martin’s cause of

2020(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 ; see Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [negligence cause of action]; Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205 [cause of action for premises liability].) Premises liability ‘ “is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises” ’; accordingly, ‘ “mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.” ’ (Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 118 , italics

2025(See Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 845, fn. 5 [appellate courts will not address issues when their resolution is unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal].) 15 The motions for summary judgment share for the most part common facts, and (continued) 25 1.

2024(See Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 845, fn. 5 [appellate courts will not address issues when their resolution is unnecessary to the disposition of the appeal].) 15 The motions for summary judgment share for the most part common facts, and (continued) 25 1.

2024(Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1203 [“The cases require that an owner must have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition before incurring liability.”]; Joshi v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 814 , 832 [same]; Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill (2005) 36 Cal.4th 224, 247, fn. 27 [“It is well established that the scope of a defendant’s duty . . . is premised upon the danger that the defendant knows or reasonably should anticipate, and that the defendant’s duty is simply to take reasonable steps in light of those circumstances.”]; Constance B. v. State of C

2024Duty of care in the context of premises liability “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury. [Citations.] Premises liability ‘“is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises”’; accordingly, ‘“mere possession with its attendant right to control conditions on the premises is a sufficient basis for the imposition of an affirmative duty to act.”’ [Citations.] But the duty arising from possession and control of property i

2024(Delgado v. American Multi-Cinema Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406, fn. 1 .) ‘To comply with this duty, a person who controls property must “ ‘ “ ‘inspect [the premises] or take other proper means to ascertain their condition’ ” ’ ” and, if a dangerous condition exists that would have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable care, has the duty to give adequate warning of or remedy it.’ (Staats v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 826, 833, fn. 12 .) ‘The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty,

2021“Broadly speaking, premises liability alleges a defendant property owner allowed a dangerous condition on its property . . . .” (Delgado v. American Multi- Cinema, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406, fn. 1 .) A premises liability claim is distinct from a negligence claim as it ““‘is grounded in the possession of the premises and the attendant right to control and manage the premises.”’” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) A defendant’s failure to specifically request that the jury 13 be instructed according to a particular theory waives the issue on appeal.

2024Trivial Defect Doctrine “Premises liability is a form of negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 .) “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “The owner of [a] premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp., supra, at p.

2024Trivial Defect Doctrine “Premises liability is a form of negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 .) “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “The owner of [a] premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp., supra, at p.

2026“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.” (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134 ; accord, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162 (Alcaraz), Soto v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 168 , 177 (Soto).) 7 Plaintiffs refer to the parking lot

2026“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) “A defendant cannot be held liable for the defective or dangerous condition of property which it did not own, possess, or control.” (Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital (1985) 38 Cal.3d 112, 134 ; accord, Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162 (Alcaraz), Soto v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 168 , 177 (Soto).) 7 Plaintiffs refer to the parking lot

2026(Id. at p. 1206; Hatfield v. Levy Brothers (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798, 806 ; Getchell v. Rogers Jewelry (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 381 , 385- 386.) To establish causation, the plaintiff must show that the store owner either directly caused the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition.

2026Although he [or she] remains free to do so, the defendant need not himself [or herself] conclusively negate any such element—for example, . . . prove not X.” ( Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 853–854, fn. omitted.) After reviewing the record de novo, we decide Stewart has demonstrated that Raposas cannot prove the element of breach.6 “Generally speaking, a property owner must have actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition before liability will be 6 Because we decide that Raposas cannot prove the breach element of her premises liability claim, we do not reach her other content

2021“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) In general, “landowners are required ‘to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’ [citations], and to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 943-944 .) But landowners “who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolute

2021“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) In general, “landowners are required ‘to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition’ [citations], and to use due care to eliminate dangerous conditions on their property.” (Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 943-944 .) But landowners “who maintain walkways, whether public or private, are not required to maintain them in an absolute

2022“Broadly speaking,” these exceptions “relate to (a) victims of wilful or malicious conduct by the owner, (b) persons who have paid consideration for permission to enter, and (c) express invitees.” (Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 708 (Delta Farms); § 846, subd. (d).) As they argued the case below, both sides assumed plaintiff Mikayla Hoffmann counts as a recreational user or entrant to whom the general rule of immunity in subdivision (a) applies.

2021(Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 152 .) 10 The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that public entities are not protected by Civil Code section 846 in Delta Farms Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 699, 710 . 18 The Avila court stated that the legislative history of the measure “confirms that Government Code section 831.7 was designed to mirror Civil Code section 846’s circumscription of property-based duties.” (Id. at p. 157.) For example, one of the bill’s descriptions provided that “Assembly Bill No. 555, ‘by providing a qualified immunity, would limit a public entity’s duty

2024(Caloroso v. Hathaway (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 922, 927 .) “Some defects are bound to exist even in the exercise of reasonable care in the maintenance of property and cannot reasonably be expected to cause accidents.” (Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 (Stathoulis).) “In appropriate cases, the trial court may determine, and the appellate court may determine de novo, whether a given walkway defect was trivial as a matter of law. 11 [Citations.] ‘Where reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion—that there was no substantial risk of injury—the issue is a question

2024(Cadam v. Somerset Gardens Townhouse HOA (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 383 , 388–389.) Whether the defect is minor or substantial as a matter of law involves several incremental inquiries.

2024(Delgado v. American Multi-Cinema Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1406, fn. 1 .) ‘To comply with this duty, a person who controls property must “ ‘ “ ‘inspect [the premises] or take other proper means to ascertain their condition’ ” ’ ” and, if a dangerous condition exists that would have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable care, has the duty to give adequate warning of or remedy it.’ (Staats v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 826, 833, fn. 12 .) ‘The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty,

2023“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) Section 1714 of the Civil Code sets forth “the basic policy of this state” with respect to injuries caused by a dangerous condition on land, which “is that everyone is responsible for an injury caused to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property.” (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 672 ; Hassaine v. Club Demonstration Servic

2023“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.” (Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1158 .) Section 1714 of the Civil Code sets forth “the basic policy of this state” with respect to injuries caused by a dangerous condition on land, which “is that everyone is responsible for an injury caused to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property.” (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 672 ; Hassaine v. Club Demonstration Servic

2022Negligence, Premises Liability, and Gross Negligence “An action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate or legal cause of injuries suffered by the plaintiff.” (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 673 (Ann M.), disapproved of on another ground in Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 527, fn. 5 .) “The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, 8 breach of that duty, and proximate cause resul