elements of a negligence claim in California

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

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 and negligence related to the chair and footrest “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 landowner “is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons,” but it does “owe them a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe.” (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205 (Ortega).) A landowner thus has a duty to reasonably inspect the premises for dangerous conditio

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

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

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

2022The elements of a negligence claim are ““a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.’” (Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1054 , 1070; accord, Day v. Lupo Vine Street L.P. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 62, 69 .) “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 ; accord, Sabetian, at p. 1070.) The first amende

2022The elements of a negligence claim are ““a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.’” (Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1054 , 1070; accord, Day v. Lupo Vine Street L.P. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 62, 69 .) “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 ; accord, Sabetian, at p. 1070.) The first amende

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

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

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

2021(See Taylor v. Trimble (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 934, 943-944 [“An owner of real property is ‘not the insurer of [a] visitor’s personal safety . . . .’ [Citation.] However, an owner is responsible ‘“for an injury occasioned to another by [the owner’s] want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. . . .”’ [Citation.] Accordingly, landowners 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”]; Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal

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(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,

2024Negligence The elements of a negligence claim are “ ‘a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.’ ” (Staats v. Vintner’s Golf Club, LLC (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 826, 831 ; Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142 [“A plaintiff in any negligence suit must demonstrate ‘ “a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such legal duty, and [that] the breach [is] the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” ’ ”].) “An insurance agent has an ‘obligation to use reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring insurance requested by an insured

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

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(Id. at p. 929.) 7 “‘Where reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion—that there was no substantial risk of injury—the issue is a question of law, properly resolved by way of summary judgment.’” (Huckey v. City of Temecula (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1092 , 1104- 1105 (Huckey); Stathoulis v. City of Montebello (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 559, 569-570 (Stathoulis).) “If, however, the court determines that sufficient evidence has been presented so that reasonable minds may differ as to whether the defect presents a substantial risk of injury, the court may not conclude that the defect is trivial as a m

2024Exchange (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119 (Desai).) This duty is triggered when (a) the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided, (b) there is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or extent of coverage, or (c) the agent holds himself out as having special expertise in the field of insurance being sought.

2024Exchange (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119 (Desai).) This duty is triggered when (a) the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided, (b) there is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or extent of coverage, or (c) the agent holds himself out as having special expertise in the field of insurance being sought.

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

2022The elements of a negligence claim are ““a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.’” (Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1054 , 1070; accord, Day v. Lupo Vine Street L.P. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 62, 69 .) “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 ; accord, Sabetian, at p. 1070.) The first amende

2022The elements of a negligence claim are ““a legal duty of care, breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.’” (Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1054 , 1070; accord, Day v. Lupo Vine Street L.P. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 62, 69 .) “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 ; accord, Sabetian, at p. 1070.) The first amende

2020(Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162, 1166 [affirming reversal of summary judgment because there were triable issues of fact as to landlord’s control of strip of city land where landlord had “maintained the lawn . . . and, subsequent to the incident at issue, constructed a fence surrounding the entire lawn”]; Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37 [trial court should have allowed plaintiff to plead that defendant restaurant failed to warn patrons leaving the restaurant that only a right turn could safely be made from its parking lot although accident occurr

2020(Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1162, 1166 [affirming reversal of summary judgment because there were triable issues of fact as to landlord’s control of strip of city land where landlord had “maintained the lawn . . . and, subsequent to the incident at issue, constructed a fence surrounding the entire lawn”]; Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37 [trial court should have allowed plaintiff to plead that defendant restaurant failed to warn patrons leaving the restaurant that only a right turn could safely be made from its parking lot although accident occurr

2025The elements of a claim for professional negligence incorporate a specific standard of care into the elements of a negligence claim.” (Burgess, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1077 , italics added; Thomas, McGhee, Kahn, & La Scala, Cal. Civ.

2021The elements of a claim for professional negligence incorporate a specific standard of care into the elements of a negligence claim. ‘The elements of a cause of action in tort for professional negligence 11 As our Supreme Court explained in Burgess, bystander cases “ ‘arise in the context of physical injury or emotional distress caused by the negligent conduct of a defendant with whom the plaintiff had no preexisting relationship, and to whom the defendant had not previously assumed a duty of care beyond that owed to the public in general.’ [Citation.] In other words, bystander liability is pr

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

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

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.

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

2024Code, § 1714, subd. (a).) In short, “ ‘each person has a duty to use ordinary care and “is liable for injuries caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances.” ’ ”6 (Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 771 (Cabral).) “ ‘ “ ‘[D]uty’ is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff; and in negligence cases, the duty is always the same, to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in … light of the apparent risk.’ ” ’ ” (Staats, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 833 , italics added.) Further, “[b

2022(See Kesner, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 1158 [“The elements of a negligence claim and a premises liability claim are the same: a legal duty of care, a breach of that duty, and proximate cause resulting in injury.”]; Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal.4th 550, 559 .) “As to any given defendant, only one standard of care obtains under a particular set of facts, even if the plaintiff attempts to articulate multiple or alternate theories of liability.” (Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 998 .) Whether Beaudreau characterizes Respondents’ duty as installin

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

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

2016(Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998 [ 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 ]; see Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 , 911 P.2d 496 ] [negligence cause of action]; Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470 , 36 P.3d 11 ] [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 im