| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

View
 

headnotes-summary

Page history last edited by PBworks 17 years, 7 months ago

Headnotes Summary - Alcaraz v. Vece

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant landlords sought review of the decision of the Court of Appeal (California), which reversed the summary judgment granted in favor of defendants on plaintiff tenant's claim for personal injuries received, on premises immediately adjacent to property owned by defendants.

 

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff tenant sued defendant landlords for personal injuries received when he stepped into a water meter box located in the lawn in front of the rental property. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants because the meter box was not located on defendants' property, but within an adjacent strip of land owned by the city. The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendants. On appeal, the court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, holding that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether defendants exercised control over the strip of land owned by the city so as to give rise to a duty to protect or warn persons entering the land. The court found that it was undisputed that defendants did not own the narrow strip of land on which the meter box was located. However, evidence regarding defendants' maintenance of the lawn, and construction of a fence, subsequent to the incident, was highly relevant regarding whether defendants exercised control over the strip of land owned by the city.

 

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, which reversed summary judgment granted in favor of defendant landlords, holding a triable issue of fact existed regarding defendants' actual or apparent control over immediately adjacent premises, foreseeability of injury to plaintiff tenant, and whether defendants had a duty to warn.

 

HN1Go to this Headnote in the case. Summary judgment is proper if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(c). More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN2Go to this Headnote in the case. The proper test to be applied to the liability of the possessor of land is whether in the management of his property he has acted as a reasonable man in view of the probability of injury to others. This requires persons to maintain land in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > Dangerous Conditions > Duty to Warn Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN3Go to this Headnote in the case. The duty to maintain land in one's possession in a reasonably safe condition exists even where the dangerous condition on the land is caused by an instrumentality that the landowner does not own or control. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Real Property Law > Ownership & Transfer > Natural Persons Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > Dangerous Conditions > Duty to Warn Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > Dangerous Conditions > Known Dangers Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN4Go to this Headnote in the case. A possessor of land who knows of the hazard would have a duty to erect a barrier or warn persons entering the land of the danger, whether or not the possessor of the land has the authority to eliminate the hazard. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN5Go to this Headnote in the case. The duties owed in connection with the condition of land are not invariably placed on the person holding title but, rather, are owed by the person in possession of the land because of the possessor's supervisory control over the activities conducted upon, and the condition of, the land. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Real Property Law > Torts > Trespass to Real Property Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN6Go to this Headnote in the case. The liability of a possessor of land no longer depends upon the rigid common law classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee. Instead, the issue of the duty of the occupier is based on ordinary principles of negligence. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > Lease Agreements > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN7Go to this Headnote in the case. The courts have long held that one who invites another to do business with him owes to the invitee the duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent his being injured on "the premises." The physical area encompassed by the term "the premises" does not, however, coincide with the area to which the invitor possesses a title or a lease. The "premises" may be less or greater than the invitor's property. The premises may include such means of ingress and egress as a customer may reasonably be expected to use. The crucial element is control. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > Lease Agreements > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > Lessees & Lessors > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN8Go to this Headnote in the case. Actual exercise of control by the tenant over a portion of leased property, even though the lease itself confers no right of such control upon him, can subject him to liability. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Real Property Law > Adjoining Landowners > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > Dangerous Conditions > General Overview Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN9Go to this Headnote in the case. The law of premises liability does not extend so far as to hold the landowner liable merely because its property exists next to adjoining dangerous property and it took no action to influence or affect the condition of such adjoining property. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Evidence > Relevance > Relevant Evidence Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Governments > Local Governments > Property Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN10Go to this Headnote in the case. Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. Cal. Evid. Code § 210. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Governments > Local Governments > Property Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Real Property Law > Adverse Possession > Elements of Adverse Claims Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN11Go to this Headnote in the case. Actual possession of real property as an appropriation of the land by the claimant such as will convey to the community where it is situated visible notice that the land is in his exclusive use and enjoyment; an appropriation manifested by either inclosing it, or cultivating it, or improving it or adapting it to such uses as it is capable of. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

 

Evidence > Relevance > Subsequent Remedial Measures Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

Governments > Local Governments > Property Retrieve All Headnotes and Additional Cases on this Topic

 

HN12Go to this Headnote in the case. Cal. Evid. Code § 1151 by its own terms excludes evidence of subsequent remedial or precautionary measures only when such evidence is offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.