California Premises Liability Law: What the CACI Instructions Require

California premises liability law makes a property owner responsible when they fail to use reasonable care and someone is hurt as a result. If you were injured on someone else’s property, the question a jury will be asked is spelled out in the California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), mainly CACI 1000, 1001, 1003 and 1004. I’ve handled these cases for more than 20 years, and before that I defended insurance companies, so I know how both sides read these instructions. If you were hurt at a store, apartment complex or other property in Tustin, my premises liability page explains how I can help.

Below is what each instruction says, in everyday terms, and what it means for a real claim.

The starting point: Civil Code section 1714

Every property owner in California owes a duty of ordinary care. Civil Code section 1714(a) says everyone is responsible for an injury caused by their “want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property.”

California doesn’t sort visitors into the old categories of invitee, licensee and trespasser. In Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, the California Supreme Court held that the question is whether the owner acted reasonably “in view of the probability of injury to others.” Your reason for being there can matter, but it doesn’t decide the case.

CACI 1000: what you have to prove

CACI 1000 lists four elements. To win a premises liability claim, you must show:

1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied or controlled the property.
2. The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property.
3. You were harmed.
4. The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing your harm.

Premises liability is a type of negligence, so these elements track the general negligence instruction, CACI 400: negligence, harm, and negligence as a substantial factor in causing the harm.

CACI 1001: the basic duty of care

CACI 1001 sets the standard. An owner or occupier “is negligent if that person fails to use reasonable care to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition.” They also “must use reasonable care to discover any unsafe conditions and to repair, replace, or give adequate warning.”

The instruction lets the jury weigh factors such as where the property is, how likely and how serious the harm was, what the owner knew, how hard it would have been to protect against the risk, and how much control the owner had. A grocery store with hundreds of shoppers a day is expected to check its floors more often than a homeowner checks a back patio.

CACI 1003: unsafe conditions

Under CACI 1003, an owner is negligent if three things are true:

1. A condition on the property created an unreasonable risk of harm.
2. The owner knew about it or, using reasonable care, should have known.
3. The owner failed to repair it, protect against it or give an adequate warning.

The middle element is where most cases are won or lost. Owners rarely admit they knew about a spill, a broken step or a loose handrail. That’s where the next instruction comes in.

CACI 1011: “should have known” (constructive notice)

You don’t have to prove the owner actually saw the hazard. CACI 1011 asks whether the condition “existed long enough” that the owner had time to discover it and fix it, guard it or warn about it. Where it applies, it adds that an owner “must make reasonable inspections,” and that a failure to inspect within a reasonable time before the accident may show the condition was there long enough to be found.

That inspection language comes from Ortega v. Kmart (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, a store case. In practice, this is why a store’s sweep logs and inspection records matter so much. When the records show nobody checked an aisle for a long stretch, that gap is evidence.

CACI 1004: obviously unsafe conditions

An owner generally doesn’t have to warn about a danger that’s obvious. CACI 1004 says that if a condition is so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to see it, there’s no duty to warn.

But that’s not the end of it. The owner “still must use reasonable care to protect against the risk of harm if it is foreseeable that the condition may cause injury to someone who because of necessity encounters the condition.” A broken step that every tenant has to use to reach their apartment is an example: the danger may be visible, but people can’t avoid it.

Property insurers raise the “open and obvious” argument often. It’s a defense, not an automatic win for them.

CACI 1005: injuries from someone else’s crime

A business or landlord can be responsible for not protecting against foreseeable crime. Under CACI 1005, a business open to the public or a landlord “must use reasonable care to protect” patrons, guests or tenants from another person’s criminal conduct on the property if the owner “can reasonably anticipate that conduct.” These are often called negligent security cases: poor lighting, broken gates or no security in a parking lot with a history of assaults.

Quick reference: the CACI premises liability instructions

Instruction	What it covers
CACI 400	General negligence elements
CACI 1000	Premises liability elements
CACI 1001	Basic duty of care
CACI 1003	Unsafe conditions (knew or should have known)
CACI 1004	Obviously unsafe conditions
CACI 1005	Criminal conduct of others
CACI 1010	Recreation immunity (Civil Code section 846)
CACI 1011	Constructive notice and inspections
CACI 1100	Dangerous condition of public property

How these claims are proved in practice

Evidence disappears quickly, so the first weeks matter most. The proof I look for in a premises case usually includes:

• photos of the hazard and the area, taken as soon as possible
• surveillance video from the property (stores often record over it, so it has to be requested in writing right away; my article on getting camera footage after an accident explains preservation requests)
• the incident report you made, and the names of employees and witnesses
• inspection logs, maintenance records and earlier complaints about the same hazard
• your medical records, starting with the first visit

Witnesses who saw the condition before your fall can show how long it was there. Earlier complaints, repair requests or photos of the same hazard can show the owner knew. For falls, my post on recognizing negligence after a slip and fall goes into what makes a floor hazard unreasonable, and when a company is liable for your injuries covers employers and businesses.

Public property and other special rules

If a city, county or state agency owns the property, different rules apply. Claims for a dangerous condition of public property fall under Government Code section 835 and CACI 1100. Before you can sue, you generally must present a written government claim within six months (Government Code section 911.2). That’s much shorter than the usual deadline, and it catches many people out after a fall on a city sidewalk.

Owners who let the public use their land for free recreation may be protected by Civil Code section 846 (CACI 1010). That immunity has exceptions, including willful failure to warn, paid entry and people who were expressly invited.

Shared fault and deadlines

Being partly at fault doesn’t bar your claim in California. Under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, your compensation is reduced by your share of fault. If a jury finds you 20% responsible for not watching your step, you still recover 80% of your damages.

The general deadline to file a personal injury lawsuit is two years from the injury (Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1), and six months for the government claim when public property is involved. Exceptions exist, so don’t count on them; get advice early.

Premises liability FAQs

What is CACI 1001?

CACI 1001 is California’s jury instruction on the basic duty of care for property owners. It says an owner or occupier is negligent if they fail to use reasonable care to keep the property reasonably safe, and that they must use reasonable care to discover unsafe conditions and repair them or warn about them.

What does a plaintiff have to prove in a California premises liability case?

Under CACI 1000: that the defendant owned, leased, occupied or controlled the property; that they were negligent in using or maintaining it; that you were harmed; and that their negligence was a substantial factor in causing your harm.

Is a property owner liable for an open and obvious danger?

Usually there’s no duty to warn about an obvious danger (CACI 1004). But the owner must still take reasonable care to protect against it if it’s foreseeable that people will have to encounter it anyway.

How long do I have to file a premises liability claim in California?

Generally two years from the injury. If a government agency owns the property, a written claim usually has to be filed within six months.

Talk to a Tustin premises liability lawyer

If you were hurt by a dangerous condition on someone else’s property, I’ll review what happened and tell you honestly whether you have a claim. You’ll work directly with me, and under my No Recovery, No Fee Guarantee you pay nothing unless I recover compensation for you. Call me at (714) 461-6003 or request a free consultation, and learn more about how I handle Tustin premises liability claims.