Premises Liability Attorney in Glendale, CA

California's Property Owner Duty of Care

California premises liability law is grounded in Civil Code Section 1714, which establishes that every person is responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care in the management of their property. This means that property owners — whether they own a private home, an apartment building, a retail store, a restaurant, or a commercial office — have a legal duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition and to warn visitors of any known hazards that are not obvious.

California follows a general negligence standard for premises liability, rather than the rigid category-based system used by some states. Under the landmark case Rowland v. Christian (1968), the California Supreme Court established that property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to all persons who enter their property. The status of the visitor — whether they are an invitee (a customer or business visitor), a licensee (a social guest), or even a trespasser — is one factor the jury considers, but it is not the sole determinant of liability.

For invitees — such as customers in a store, guests in a hotel, or patrons at a restaurant — the duty of care is highest. The property owner must regularly inspect the premises for hazardous conditions, promptly repair or correct any dangers discovered, and warn visitors of any hazards that cannot be immediately corrected. For licensees, the owner must warn of known hazards. For trespassers, the general rule is that no duty is owed, but important exceptions exist for child trespassers under the attractive nuisance doctrine.

Our firm evaluates the specific circumstances of every premises liability case to determine the applicable duty of care and whether the property owner breached that duty. This analysis forms the foundation of every claim we pursue.

Negligent Security Claims in Glendale and Los Angeles

Negligent security is a subset of premises liability that holds property owners responsible when inadequate security measures allow criminal activity to occur on their property. In Glendale and Los Angeles — where certain areas experience higher crime rates — property owners who fail to provide reasonable security measures can be held liable for injuries their visitors and tenants suffer as a result of criminal attacks.

To prove a negligent security claim in California, the injured person must show that the property owner knew or should have known about the risk of criminal activity on the property and failed to take reasonable steps to protect against it. This knowledge can be established through prior criminal incidents at the property, crime statistics for the surrounding area, complaints from tenants or visitors, and the foreseeability of criminal activity based on the type of property and its location.

Reasonable security measures depend on the circumstances but may include adequate lighting in parking lots and common areas, functioning security cameras, security guards or patrol services, controlled access to buildings and parking structures, working locks on doors and windows, and proper screening of personnel. A nightclub in Hollywood has different security obligations than a suburban apartment complex, but both must provide security measures appropriate to their foreseeable risks.

Common negligent security scenarios in the Glendale and LA area include assaults in poorly lit parking garages and lots, robberies at convenience stores and gas stations without security cameras, burglaries and assaults at apartment complexes with broken gates and locks, and attacks at bars and nightclubs with insufficient security staff. Our firm investigates the property's security measures, its history of criminal incidents, and the foreseeability of the attack to build compelling negligent security claims.

Swimming Pool Accidents and the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

Swimming pool accidents are a tragically common form of premises liability in Southern California, where pools are ubiquitous in both residential and commercial properties. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, California leads the nation in child drowning deaths, and the vast majority of those drownings occur in residential swimming pools.

California law imposes specific safety requirements on swimming pool owners. The California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, Section 3109) requires that residential pools be enclosed by a fence or barrier at least 60 inches high with self-closing, self-latching gates. Pool enclosures must not have openings that allow a child to pass through. Doors or gates that provide direct access from a building to the pool must be equipped with self-closing devices, alarms, or both.

The attractive nuisance doctrine provides additional protection for children. Under this doctrine, a property owner who maintains a condition on their property that is likely to attract children — such as a swimming pool — must take reasonable precautions to protect children from the danger, even if the children are technically trespassing. A homeowner who leaves a pool unfenced and accessible to neighboring children can be held liable if a child is injured, even though the child entered the property without permission.

Apartment complexes, hotels, and community pools in Glendale and Los Angeles are subject to additional regulations, including requirements for lifeguards, pool depth markings, rescue equipment, and drain covers that prevent entrapment. Our firm investigates whether the pool owner complied with all applicable safety requirements and whether the violation of any requirement contributed to the injury or drowning.

Elevator and Escalator Injuries

Elevator and escalator accidents can cause devastating injuries — from broken bones and lacerations to amputations and traumatic brain injuries. In a metropolitan area like Glendale and Los Angeles, where multi-story buildings are the norm, elevators and escalators are part of daily life. Shopping centers, office buildings, parking garages, apartment complexes, and hospitals all rely on these conveyances, and when they malfunction, the results can be catastrophic.

California regulates elevators and escalators through the Elevator Safety Orders (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Sections 3000-3141). These regulations require regular inspections, maintenance by certified technicians, and compliance with safety standards for doors, brakes, leveling systems, and emergency features. Building owners are responsible for ensuring that their elevators and escalators are inspected on schedule and maintained in safe operating condition.

Common elevator accident scenarios include sudden drops caused by cable or brake failures, doors closing on passengers, leveling errors that create trip-and-fall hazards between the elevator car and the floor, and entrapment due to power failures or mechanical malfunctions. Escalator accidents commonly involve entrapment of clothing or body parts in the gap between the step and the sidewall, sudden stops that throw passengers off balance, handrail malfunctions, and broken or missing comb plates.

Liability in elevator and escalator cases may rest with the building owner, the property management company, the elevator maintenance company, or the elevator manufacturer — depending on whether the accident was caused by negligent maintenance, a design defect, or a failure to conduct required inspections. Our firm retains elevator and escalator safety experts to inspect the equipment, review maintenance records, and identify the cause of every malfunction.

Retail Store and Commercial Property Injuries

Retail stores, shopping centers, restaurants, and other commercial properties in Glendale and Los Angeles owe their customers the highest duty of care under California law. As business invitees, customers are owed not only a warning about known hazards but also regular inspection of the premises to discover and correct hazards before they cause injury.

The most common commercial property injury is the slip and fall. Wet floors from mopping, leaking refrigeration units, or tracked-in rainwater, spilled merchandise, uneven flooring transitions, loose floor mats, cluttered aisles, and inadequate lighting all create fall hazards. Under California law, the key question in a slip-and-fall case is whether the property owner knew or should have known about the hazardous condition and failed to address it in a reasonable time.

California courts use the concept of "constructive notice" to determine whether the property owner should have known about a hazard. If a liquid spill sat on the floor for 30 minutes without anyone cleaning it up or placing a warning sign, the store had constructive notice of the hazard because a reasonable inspection would have discovered it. Stores with high customer traffic are expected to inspect more frequently — a busy grocery store should be checking aisles every 15 to 30 minutes.

Our firm obtains surveillance footage showing how long the hazard existed before the accident, maintenance and inspection logs showing whether the store followed its own protocols, and incident reports showing prior similar accidents at the location. Major retailers like Walmart, Target, Costco, and grocery chains like Ralphs, Vons, and Trader Joe's all maintain substantial liability insurance specifically because premises liability claims are a foreseeable cost of operating high-traffic retail spaces.

Damages in California Premises Liability Cases

California premises liability victims can recover the full range of compensatory damages, and there is no cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases. This means that a jury can award whatever amount it deems appropriate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other intangible harms.

Economic damages in premises liability cases include all past and future medical expenses — emergency room visits, surgeries, hospitalization, physical therapy, prescription medications, assistive devices, and any ongoing care needed as a result of the injury. Lost wages for time missed from work are recoverable, as is lost earning capacity if the injury prevents the victim from returning to their occupation or reduces their ability to earn income in the future. Out-of-pocket expenses such as transportation to medical appointments, home modifications, and domestic help during recovery are also compensable.

Non-economic damages compensate for the human toll of the injury: physical pain, emotional suffering, anxiety, depression, PTSD (particularly common in assault and negligent security cases), loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, scarring, and loss of consortium. For victims of violent crimes on commercial properties — where the property owner's negligent security contributed to the attack — the emotional and psychological damages can be the largest component of the recovery.

In cases where the property owner's conduct was willful, malicious, or demonstrated a conscious disregard for the safety of others, punitive damages may be available under California Civil Code Section 3294. A landlord who knowingly refused to repair a dangerous condition despite repeated complaints, or a business owner who deliberately disabled security cameras to save money, may face punitive damage exposure. Our firm evaluates every case for the full spectrum of available damages. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.