State litigation guide · California

Slip and Fall Lawsuit in California

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated July 20, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Filing venue

Where to File in California

California premises liability law distinguishes between invitees, licensees, and trespassers when assessing a property owner's duty of care. Under Civil Code § 1714 and the landmark Rowland v. Christian (1968) framework, California courts apply a general reasonableness standard, weighing the foreseeability of harm, the burden on the property owner, and the relationship between the parties. Commercial property owners owe the highest duty—reasonable care to inspect, maintain, and warn of hazardous conditions—to business invitees. Licensees (social guests) are owed a duty to warn of known dangers not likely to be discovered, while trespassers are generally owed only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury, with an exception for child trespassers under the attractive nuisance doctrine.

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in California is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Claims against government entities are subject to the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 910 et seq.), which requires filing a written claim with the responsible public agency within six months of the incident. Failure to present a timely government claim bars the plaintiff from filing suit. After claim rejection or 45 days without a response, the plaintiff has six months to file suit. The discovery rule may toll the limitations period when the plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the injury.

California follows the pure comparative fault doctrine established in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975). A plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to their own percentage of fault, regardless of how great that fault may be. Even a plaintiff found 99% at fault may recover 1% of their damages. This rule applies in slip-and-fall cases where defendants frequently argue the plaintiff was inattentive, wearing inappropriate footwear, or ignored visible hazards. Fault is apportioned among all parties, including absent or non-party defendants, on the verdict form.

Snow and ice removal is not a significant issue across most of California, though landlords in mountain communities may have heightened duties under local ordinances. Retailers and commercial landlords face ongoing inspection duties for wet floors, spilled merchandise, and parking lot defects. California courts have held that a property owner's actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition is an essential element of a slip-and-fall claim; constructive notice is established by showing the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

12 QUESTIONS

Possibly — whether partial fault bars or reduces your recovery depends entirely on your state's negligence law. There are three main frameworks. In pure comparative negligence states (California, New York, and others), you can recover even if you were 99% at fault — your compensation is simply reduced by your percentage of fault. In modified comparative negligence states (most states), you can recover only if you were less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state's specific threshold. In pure contributory negligence states (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington D.C.), any fault on your part — even 1% — completely bars your recovery. Property owners and their insurers routinely try to assign blame to the victim, claiming you were distracted by your phone, wearing inappropriate footwear, or ignoring obvious hazards. An attorney can help counter these arguments with evidence about the hazard's condition, the adequacy of any warnings, and the reasonableness of your conduct.

Keep reading