CACI No. 1006. Landlord’s Duty

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Bg2d1

1006 . Landlord’ s Duty

A landlord must conduct reasonable periodic inspections of rental

property whenever the landlord has the legal right of possession. Before

giving possession of leased property to a tenant [or on renewal of a lease]

[or after retaking possession fr om a tenant], a landlord must conduct a

reasonable inspection of the pr operty for unsafe conditions and must

take reasonable pr ecautions to prevent injury due to the conditions that

were or reasonably should have been discover ed in the process. The

inspection must include common areas under the landlord’ s control.

After a tenant has taken possession, a landlord must take r easonable

precautions to pr event injury due to any unsafe condition in an area of

the premises under the landlord’ s control if the landlord knows or

reasonably should have known about it.

[After a tenant has taken possession, a landlord must take r easonable

precautions to pr event injury due to any unsafe condition in an area of

the premises under the tenant’ s control if the landlord has actual

knowledge of the condition and the right and ability to correct it.]

New September 2003; Revised April 2008, April 2009, December 2009, June 2010

Directions for Use

Give this instruction with CACI No. 1000, Pr emises Liability - Essential Factual

Elements , CACI No. 1001, Basic Duty of Car e , and CACI No. 1003, Unsafe

Conditions, if the injury occurred on rental property and the landlord is alleged to

be liable. Include the last paragraph if the property is not within the landlord’ s

immediate control.

Include “or on renewal of a lease” for commercial tenancies. (See Mora v . Baker

Commodities, Inc. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 771, 781 [258 Cal.Rptr . 669].) While no

case appears to have specifically addressed a landlord’ s duty to inspect on renewal

of a residential lease, it would seem impossible to impose such a duty with regard

to a month-to-month tenancy . Whether there might be a duty to inspect on renewal

of a long-term residential lease appears to be unresolved.

Under the doctrine of nondelegable duty , a landlord cannot escape liability for

failure to maintain property in a safe condition by delegating the duty to an

independent contractor . ( Srithong v . T otal Investment Co. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th

721, 726 [28 Cal.Rptr .2d 672].) For an instruction for use with regard to a

landlord’ s liability for the acts of an independent contractor , see CACI No. 3713,

Nondelegable Duty .

Sources and Authority

• “A landlord owes a duty of care to a tenant to provide and maintain safe

Bg2d2

conditions on the leased premises. This duty of care also extends to the general

public. ‘A lessor who leases property for a purpose involving the admission of

the public is under a duty to see that it is safe for the purposes intended, and to

exercise reasonable care to inspect and repair the premises before possession is

transferred so as to prevent any unreasonable risk of harm to the public who

may enter . An agreement to renew a lease or relet the premises . . . cannot

relieve the lessor of his duty to see that the premises are reasonably safe at that

time.’ [¶] Where there is a duty to exercise reasonable care in the inspection of

premises for dangerous conditions, the lack of awareness of the dangerous

condition does not generally preclude liability . ‘Although liability might easily

be found where the landowner has actual knowledge of the dangerous condition

“[t]he landowner ’ s lack of knowledge of the dangerous condition is not a

defense. He has an af firmative duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the

premises in a reasonably safe condition, and therefore must inspect them or take

other proper means to ascertain their condition. And if, by the exercise of

reasonable care, he would have discovered the dangerous condition, he is

liable.” ’ ” ( Portillo v . Aiassa (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1 128, 1 134 [32 Cal.Rptr .2d

755], internal citations omitted.)

• “Public policy precludes landlord liability for a dangerous condition on the

premises which came into existence after possession has passed to a tenant. This

is based on the principle that the landlord has surrendered possession and control

of the land to the tenant and has no right even to enter without permission. It

would not be reasonable to hold a lessor liable if the lessor did not have the

power , opportunity , and ability to eliminate the dangerous condition.” ( Gar cia v .

Holt (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 600, 604 [195 Cal.Rptr .3d 47], internal citations

• “The rationale for this rule has been that property law regards a lease as

equivalent to a sale of the land for the term of the lease. As stated by Prosser:

‘In the absence of agreement to the contrary , the lessor surrenders both

possession and control of the land to the lessee, retaining only a reversionary

interest; and he has no right even to enter without the permission of the lessee.

Consequently , it is the general rule that he is under no obligation to anyone to

look after the premises or keep them in repair , and is not responsible, either to

persons injured on the land or to those outside of it, for conditions which

develop or are created by the tenant after possession has been transferred.

Neither is he responsible, in general, for the activities which the tenant carries

on upon the land after such transfer , even when they create a nuisance.’ ”

( Uccello v . Laudenslayer (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 504, 510-511 [1 18 Cal.Rptr .

741], internal citations omitted.)

• “T o this general rule of nonliability , the law has developed a number of

exceptions, such as where the landlord covenants or volunteers to repair a

defective condition on the premises, where the landlord has actual knowledge of

defects which are unknown and not apparent to the tenant and he fails to

disclose them to the tenant, where there is a nuisance existing on the property at

CACI No. 1006 PREMISES LIABILITY

Bg2d3

the time the lease is made or renewed, when a safety law has been violated, or

where the injury occurs on a part of the premises over which the landlord retains

control, such as common hallways, stairs, elevators, or roof. [¶] A common

element in these exceptions is that either at or after the time possession is given

to the tenant the landlord retains or acquires a recognizable degree of control

over the dangerous condition with a concomitant right and power to obviate the

condition and prevent the injury . In these situations, the law imposes on the

landlord a duty to use ordinary care to eliminate the condition with resulting

liability for injuries caused by his failure so to act.” ( Uccello, supra, 44

Cal.App.3d at p. 51 1, internal citations omitted.)

• “W ith regard to landlords, ‘reasonable care ordinarily involves making sure the

property is safe at the beginning of the tenancy , and repairing any hazards the

landlord learns about later .’ ‘ “Because a landlord has relinquished possessory

interest in the land, his or her duty of care to third parties injured on the land is

attenuated as compared with the tenant who enjoys possession and control. Thus,

before liability may be thrust on a landlord for a third party’ s injury due to a

dangerous condition on the land, the plaintif f must show that the landlord had

actual knowledge of the dangerous condition in question, plus the right and

ability to cure the condition.” ’ ” ( Day v . Lupo V ine Street, L.P . (2018) 22

Cal.App.5th 62, 69 [231 Cal.Rptr .3d 193], internal citations omitted.)

• “Limiting a landlord’ s obligations releases it from needing to engage in

potentially intrusive oversight of the property , thus permitting the tenant to enjoy

its tenancy unmolested.” ( Salinas v . Martin (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 404, 412 [82

Cal.Rptr .3d 735], internal citations omitted.)

• “[A] commercial landowner cannot totally abrogate its landowner responsibilities

merely by signing a lease. As the owner of property , a lessor out of possession

must exercise due care and must act reasonably toward the tenant as well as to

unknown third persons. At the time the lease is executed and upon renewal a

landlord has a right to reenter the property , has control of the property , and must

inspect the premises to make the premises reasonably safe from dangerous

conditions. Even if the commercial landlord executes a contract which requires

the tenant to maintain the property in a certain condition, the landlord is

obligated at the time the lease is executed to take reasonable precautions to

avoid unnecessary danger .” ( Mora , supra , 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 781, internal

citations omitted.)

• “[T]he landlord’ s responsibility to inspect is limited. Like a residential landlord,

the duty to inspect charges the lessor ‘only with those matters which would have

been disclosed by a reasonable inspection.’ The burden of reducing or avoiding

the risk and the likelihood of injury will af fect the determination of what

constitutes a reasonable inspection. The landlord’ s obligation is only to do what

is reasonable under the circumstances. The landlord need not take extraordinary

measures or make unreasonable expenditures of time and money in trying to

discover hazards unless the circumstances so warrant. When there is a potential

serious danger , which is foreseeable, a landlord should anticipate the danger and

PREMISES LIABILITY CACI No. 1006

Bg2d4

conduct a reasonable inspection before passing possession to the tenant.

However , if no such inspection is warranted, the landlord has no such

obligation.” ( Mora, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 782, internal citations and

footnote omitted.)

• “It is one thing for a landlord to leave a tenant alone who is complying with its

lease. It is entirely dif ferent, however , for a landlord to ignore a defaulting

tenant’ s possible neglect of property . Neglected property endangers the public,

and a landlord’ s detachment frustrates the public policy of keeping property in

good repair and safe. T o strike the right balance between safety and disfavored

self-help, we hold that [the landlord]’ s duty to inspect attached upon entry of the

judgment of possession in the unlawful detainer action and included reasonable

periodic inspections thereafter .” ( Stone v . Center T rust Retail Pr operties, Inc.

(2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 608, 613 [77 Cal.Rptr .3d 556].)

• “[I]t is established that a landlord owes a duty of care to its tenants to take

reasonable steps to secure the common areas under its control.” ( Ann M. v .

Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 675 [25 Cal.Rptr .2d 137,

863 P .2d 207].)

• “The existence of the landlord’ s duty to others to maintain the property in a

reasonably safe condition is a question of law for the court.” ( Johnson v . Prasad

(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 74, 79 [168 Cal.Rptr .3d 196].)

• “The reasonableness of a landlord’ s conduct under all the circumstances is for

the jury . A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendants’ maintenance

of a low , open, unguarded window in a common hallway where they knew

young children were likely to play constituted a breach of their duty to take

reasonable precautions to prevent children falling out of the window .” ( Amos v .

Alpha Pr op. Mgmt. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 895, 904 [87 Cal.Rptr .2d 34], internal

citation omitted.)

Secondary Sources

6 W itkin, Summary of California Law (1 1th ed. 2017) T orts, §§ 1284, 1285

1 Levy et al., California T orts, Ch. 15, General Premises Liability , § 15.02

(Matthew Bender)

6 California Real Estate Law and Practice, Ch. 170, The Pr emises: Duties and

Liabilities , § 170.03 (Matthew Bender)

29 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 334, Landlor d and T enant:

Claims for Damages , §§ 334.10, 334.53 (Matthew Bender)

36 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 421, Pr emises Liability , § 421.11

et seq. (Matthew Bender)

17 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 178, Pr emises Liability , § 178.23 (Matthew

California Civil Practice: T orts §§ 16:12-16:16 (Thomson Reuters)

CACI No. 1006 PREMISES LIABILITY

Page last reviewed May 2024

Vikram David Amar

UC Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar analyzes a recent Eighth Circuit ruling on Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which seeks to protect gun rights by limiting state cooperation with federal firearm laws.

Lawyers - Get Listed Now! Get a free directory profile listing