Extension cords running across floor in California personal injury case

Extension cords running across the floor in a California setting—whether in a store, restaurant, office, or event venue—can absolutely serve as the basis for a premises liability claim if someone is injured, especially due to a trip-and-fall.

Here’s how it typically plays out:


⚖️ Legal Framework: Premises Liability (California)

Under California law, property owners and occupiers have a duty of care to maintain reasonably safe conditions. That includes ensuring walking areas are free of obstructions or tripping hazards like extension cords—unless:

  • They are safely secured, and
  • Adequate warnings or markings are provided.

🧱 Plaintiff Must Prove:

  1. Control of the premises by the defendant.
  2. Defendant was negligent in allowing or failing to fix the hazardous condition (e.g., a cord across a walkway).
  3. Plaintiff suffered an injury.
  4. Defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

🧩 Common Risk Scenarios:

  • Extension cords used during temporary setups (e.g., during maintenance or events).
  • Cords left unsecured in busy walkways.
  • Lack of warning signs, tape, or cord covers.
  • Cords in dimly lit areas or around corners.

🔍 Key Questions in a Legal Case:

  • Was the cord obvious or hidden?
  • Was it secured properly (e.g., taped down, covered)?
  • Did the owner or staff have notice of the condition?
  • Was there a safer alternative (e.g., running the cord overhead or along the wall)?
  • Were there past incidents or complaints?

📸 Strong Evidence for Plaintiff:

  • Photos/video of the extension cord as it was during the incident.
  • Maintenance logs showing who set it up and when.
  • Witness testimony (e.g., about visibility or lack of warnings).
  • Incident reports filed after the injury.

⚠️ Violations of Code/Industry Standards

California OSHA and building codes, as well as fire codes, may be relevant if the cords were placed in a way that created a fire hazard or egress obstruction.


💬 Defenses Property Owners Might Use:

  • The condition was open and obvious, and the plaintiff should have seen it.
  • The cord was temporary, and no safer method was feasible.
  • Comparative negligence: The plaintiff was looking at a phone, wearing unsafe footwear, etc.

Remember: California uses a pure comparative fault rule. Even if the plaintiff is partly at fault, they can still recover damages, just reduced by their percentage of fault.


✅ Real Example:

Someone trips over a cord at a trade show booth, breaks their ankle, and sues the event organizer. If the cord wasn’t properly secured or marked and was placed in a walkway, liability is likely.

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”]].