When someone is injured on another person’s property, a key legal question is whether the property owner is at fault. In California, the duty of care owed by landowners stems from the foundational case Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, which established that property owners and occupants must act reasonably to ensure their premises are safe and free from foreseeable harm. Recently, courts have refined how this duty applies in scenarios involving hazards that are in plain view.
“Open and Obvious” Hazards and the Duty of Care
Property owners traditionally defended against claims by arguing that if a hazard was “open and obvious,” they had no duty to warn or fix the problem. However, recent decisions emphasize that visibility alone does not necessarily absolve a property owner of responsibility. For example, in Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 438, the court acknowledged that even if a danger is clearly visible, the owner may still need to take action if it remains foreseeable that an injury could occur.
These cases build on the principle that the open-and-obvious nature of a hazard is just one factor in determining whether a property owner’s conduct was reasonable. Courts now look closely at the circumstances: Is the area crowded or dimly lit? Are visitors likely to be distracted? These considerations can influence whether a simple warning sign or a modest repair might have prevented the injury.
Balancing the Interests of Owners and Visitors
The modern approach, as reflected in Jacobs and similar cases, encourages a balanced assessment. The question is not only whether a hazard was plainly visible, but also whether the property owner acted reasonably under the circumstances. For instance, if a storeowner knows customers are often preoccupied with merchandise displays, it may not be enough to rely on the visibility of a step or a defect in the flooring. Even an obvious danger might warrant additional measures, such as a handrail or a warning sign, to reduce the risk of foreseeable harm.
Foreseeability as a Key Consideration
Another critical factor is whether injuries of this kind were foreseeable. Where similar incidents have occurred before, or where a hazard clearly poses an increased risk—like a poorly lit stairwell or a raised threshold that commonly trips visitors—courts expect property owners to address the issue. This principle is supported by a line of cases following Rowland, and the more recent decision in Kruger v. Warrener (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 712, which further emphasized the importance of foreseeability in shaping the owner’s duty.
What This Means for Injury Victims
For injured parties, these developments can be significant. Even if a hazard appeared obvious, you may still have a valid claim if a reasonable property owner would have taken steps to prevent an injury under the same circumstances. Conversely, for property owners, these rulings underscore the need to regularly inspect and maintain their premises, and to consider how conditions might still pose a danger despite being visible.
Our firm closely follows these legal developments. If you have questions about your rights after a slip-and-fall or another injury on someone’s property, we are here to help you understand these evolving standards and pursue the compensation you deserve. Please call us for a free consultation at (818) 348-9515.
Comments