If a shopper falls in a pothole in a store’s parking lot in California, the case would fall under premises liability law, and liability depends on who owned or controlled the parking lot, whether they knew or should have known about the pothole, and whether they took reasonable steps to repair or warn about it.
⚖️ Legal Framework – Premises Liability in California
To recover compensation, the injured person (plaintiff) must prove the following elements:
1. Duty of Care
- In California, businesses owe customers (invitees) a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, including adjacent areas under their control like parking lots (Civ. Code § 1714).
- This includes:
- Regular inspection of the lot
- Timely repair of hazards like potholes
- Posting warnings (cones, signs, barriers) if immediate repair isn’t possible
2. Breach of Duty
- If the store failed to fix or warn about the pothole, especially after becoming aware of it or after it existed for a long time, this would likely constitute a breach.
- A large, obvious, or long-standing pothole in a pedestrian walkway is a foreseeable hazard.
3. Notice (Actual or Constructive Knowledge)
To be liable, the store (or property owner) must have had:
- Actual knowledge: They knew about the pothole through reports, inspections, or employee observations.
- Constructive knowledge: The pothole existed long enough that they should have known through reasonable care.
Example: If the pothole was visible, had been there for weeks or months, or was known to employees, constructive notice likely applies.
4. Causation
- The fall must have been caused by the pothole, not by other unrelated factors.
- Surveillance footage, photos, and witness statements help establish this.
5. Damages
- The shopper must prove actual harm, including:
- Medical bills
- Lost wages
- Pain and suffering
- Permanent injury, if applicable
🧾 Who Might Be Liable?
- The store, if it owns or controls the parking lot.
- The landlord/property owner, if the store leases space and the landlord maintains the lot.
- A third-party maintenance company, if hired to inspect or repair the lot.
- A government entity, if the lot is publicly owned (rare for retail stores).
📎 Useful Evidence
- Photos of the pothole and the area.
- Surveillance video of the incident.
- Witnesses who saw the fall or knew of the pothole.
- Store or maintenance records (inspection logs, prior complaints).
- Incident report.
- Medical documentation of injuries.
⚠️ Comparative Negligence (California)
California uses pure comparative negligence:
- If the shopper was partially at fault (e.g., not watching their step, walking while distracted), their damages will be reduced proportionally.
Example: Shopper is 20% at fault. If total damages are $100,000 → recovery = $80,000.
🕒 Statute of Limitations
- 2 years from the date of injury to file a lawsuit (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
- If a government entity is involved (e.g., public property): Must file a government claim within 6 months.
✅ Summary
A shopper injured by falling into a pothole in a store’s parking lot may have a strong premises liability claim if:
- The pothole existed long enough for the store to discover and fix it,
- The store failed to repair or warn about it, and
- The fall caused measurable injuries.
Law Offices of James R. Dickinson – 909-848-8448
How To Schedule A Consultation:
Please call us at 909-848-8448 to schedule a free consultation/case evaluation or complete the form immediately below. [Please note certain formalities must be completed to retain the Law Offices of James R. Dickinson, such as the signing of a legal fee agreement [see “Disclaimers”]].