CACI 1000 is California’s jury instruction for premises liability, and it requires a plaintiff to prove four things: that the defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property; that the defendant was negligent in using or maintaining it; that the plaintiff was harmed; and that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing that harm.1Justia. CACI No. 1000 Premises Liability – Essential Factual Elements Each element must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Miss one, and the claim fails.
The Four Elements You Must Prove
Ownership, Lease, Occupancy, or Control
The first element is the one that separates premises liability from ordinary negligence. The defendant must have owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property where the injury happened.1Justia. CACI No. 1000 Premises Liability – Essential Factual Elements Outright ownership is not required. California courts treat control as enough on its own, which means a commercial tenant running a storefront, a management company operating an apartment complex, or a contractor overseeing a jobsite can all be on the hook if they had the authority to discover and address the hazard.
Negligent Use or Maintenance
The second element asks whether the defendant failed to use reasonable care to keep the property safe. The companion instruction, CACI 1001, spells out the basic duty: an owner or occupier must use reasonable care to discover unsafe conditions and either repair them, replace them, or warn about them.2Justia. CACI No. 1001 Basic Duty of Care This duty traces back to California Civil Code section 1714, which makes everyone responsible for injuries caused by their failure to exercise ordinary care in managing their property.3California Legislative Information. California Code CIV 1714 – Responsibility for Willful Acts, Negligence, Etc.
Negligence can be an act or a failure to act. Stacking heavy boxes on an unstable shelf above a walkway is one; ignoring a known electrical hazard is the other. Jurors compare what the defendant did against what a reasonably careful person would have done in the same position.
Actual Harm
Negligence without injury does not support a claim. The plaintiff has to show real, compensable harm. That covers economic losses like medical bills, lost wages, and repair costs, and also non-economic harm like pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.4Justia. CACI No. 3902 Economic and Noneconomic Damages The jury does not need an exact dollar figure, but speculation will not do; the award must reasonably compensate for harm that actually occurred.5Justia. CACI No. 3900 Introduction to Tort Damages – Liability Contested
Substantial Factor Causation
Finally, the plaintiff must link the defendant’s negligence to the harm. California uses the substantial factor test, not a simple “but for” standard. A substantial factor is one a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm, and it must be more than remote or trivial.6Justia. CACI No. 430 Causation: Substantial Factor The defendant’s negligence need not be the only cause. A broken handrail can be a substantial factor in a fall even if the plaintiff was also looking at their phone, and when multiple causes combine, each negligent party can be held responsible for the result.7Justia. CACI No. 431 Causation: Multiple Causes
What Reasonable Care Looks Like
The reasonable person standard is how jurors measure the second element. It asks what a person of ordinary caution and foresight would do in the defendant’s position. The standard is objective. The defendant’s stress level, ignorance of the hazard, or good intentions do not matter; the question is whether their conduct fell below the care ordinary prudence demands.
Context shapes the analysis. A wet floor during a rainstorm sets different expectations than a wet floor on a dry day. A construction site demands more aggressive hazard management than a private backyard. Children are judged against what a reasonable child of the same age would do, not against an adult standard. Professionals are held to the standard of care within their field, which is usually higher than ordinary care.
Comparative Fault Reduces, but Does Not Erase, Recovery
California follows pure comparative negligence. A plaintiff’s own carelessness reduces the damages award in proportion to their share of responsibility, but it never eliminates recovery entirely. A plaintiff who is 30 percent at fault recovers 70 percent of the damages. A plaintiff who is 90 percent at fault still recovers 10 percent.8Justia. Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
Under CACI 405, the defendant carries the burden of proving the plaintiff was negligent and that the plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial factor in the harm.9Justia. CACI No. 405 Comparative Fault of Plaintiff If the defendant succeeds, the jury assigns a percentage, and the judge reduces damages accordingly. In premises cases this is routine. A property owner who left a staircase unlit will argue the visitor should have waited or used the handrail, and the jury will divide responsibility.
Defenses That Can Defeat the Claim
Comparative fault reduces damages. A few other defenses can wipe them out entirely.
Assumption of risk is the strongest. California splits it in two. Primary assumption of risk applies when the activity itself carries inherent dangers the defendant has no duty to eliminate. A weightlifter who drops a barbell on their own foot at a gym generally cannot recover, because that risk is built into the activity. Primary assumption of risk completely bars the claim. Secondary assumption of risk, where the plaintiff knowingly encountered a hazard the defendant negligently created, folds into comparative fault instead of acting as a total bar.
Defendants also attack causation directly. They argue the injury would have happened regardless of any negligence, or that an intervening event broke the causal chain. Foreseeability is central. If the harm was not a foreseeable consequence of the property condition, the defendant’s conduct is not a proximate cause of the injury even if it was a factual cause.
Deadlines That Will End the Case Before It Starts
A premises liability claim in California generally must be filed within two years of the injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.10California Legislative Information. California Code CCP 335.1 Miss that window and the court will almost certainly dismiss the case regardless of how strong the proof on the four elements is.
The clock usually starts on the date of injury. California recognizes a discovery rule for injuries that were not reasonably apparent at the time; in those cases the two-year period may begin when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the harm. Courts examine these arguments carefully and do not extend deadlines indefinitely.
Claims against government entities are different, and the difference is unforgiving. If a city, county, or state agency owns the property, the injured person must file an administrative claim within six months of the incident before any lawsuit can proceed.11California Legislative Information. California Government Code 911.2 Six months passes faster than people expect, and missing it is fatal.
How CACI 1000 Differs From CACI 400
People searching for CACI 1000 sometimes land there looking for general negligence. That is CACI 400, which applies when the claim does not involve a property condition. CACI 400 has three elements: negligence, harm, and substantial factor causation.12Justia. CACI No. 400 Negligence – Essential Factual Elements CACI 1000 adds the fourth element tying the defendant to the property through ownership, lease, occupancy, or control.1Justia. CACI No. 1000 Premises Liability – Essential Factual Elements If the injury came from a dangerous property condition, CACI 1000 is the instruction. If it came from conduct unrelated to property, CACI 400 controls.