California Premises Liability Funding

Two years from the date of injury for a premises-liability/negligence claim (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1). California uses the general personal-injury period rather than a distinct premises-liability statute.

California applies pure comparative negligence — a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but never barred, regardless of size (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975)). California's most consequential premises rule for this case type is structural: Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), abolished the rigid invitee/licensee/trespasser categories that most other states still use, replacing them with a single general duty of reasonable care under the circumstances owed to any person on the property, regardless of their entry status. That status is now just one fact among many (foreseeability, likelihood and severity of injury, burden of preventing it) rather than a threshold that can defeat a claim outright. For negligent security specifically, California still requires a heightened, fact-intensive foreseeability showing before imposing a duty to hire guards or add security measures: Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal. 4th 666 (1993), held that the burden of a security measure must be balanced against its foreseeability, and that absent prior similar criminal incidents on the property, a commercial landlord generally has no duty to provide security guards — meaning California's unified reasonable-care standard does not eliminate the practical importance of a documented history of comparable incidents in a negligent-security claim.

No general statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability claim.

Generally unavailable before judgment on unliquidated damages such as pain and suffering; post-judgment interest accrues at 10% per year (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 685.010).

Superior Court in the county where the injury occurred or where the defendant resides or does business (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 395).

California regulates consumer litigation funding under the California Consumer Legal Funding Act (AB 931), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6250–6256. No percentage or APR cap.

Does Rowland v. Christian mean a trespasser can recover as easily as a customer in California?

Not exactly. Rowland replaced the rigid status categories with a single reasonable-care standard, but a visitor's status still factors into what a jury considers reasonable — courts weigh the likelihood the person would be on the property, the foreseeability of harm, and the burden the owner would have faced in preventing it.

In practice, a commercial invitee injured by a broken stair rail or an unsecured entrance still benefits from the strongest version of the duty, while a status distinction that would fully bar a claim in a traditional state instead becomes one input into a broader reasonableness analysis in California.

Why does a negligent-security claim in California still turn on prior incidents despite the unified duty rule?

Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center requires courts to weigh the burden of a security measure against how foreseeable the harm was, treating a documented pattern of prior similar crime on the property as the clearest evidence of that foreseeability.

A shopping center, apartment complex, or parking structure with a police-report history of comparable assaults or robberies presents a materially stronger negligent-security claim than one with no such record, even though both are analyzed under the same general reasonable-care standard.

How does a multi-defendant structure — owner, manager, security contractor — affect a California claim?

Negligent-security and structural-failure claims frequently name the property owner, a separate management company, and sometimes an independent security contractor, each of whom may bear a different share of responsibility for the specific failure.

Untangling which entity controlled hiring, maintenance, or security staffing decisions often requires contract discovery between the co-defendants themselves, which adds a layer of complexity — and time — beyond a single-owner premises claim.