Enlarge textE-mail this pageContact UsPrinter-friendly pageRSS feeds

Premises Liability

Premises liability litigation involves complex issues arising from the relationships between landowners and those permitted on the owner’s land, whether as tenants, guests, or contractors. Our appellate experience spans a wide variety of situations, from mobile home park owners’ liability for gang-related shootings to an oil refinery’s liability for contract workers’ exposure to asbestos.  We have particular expertise in representing property owners sued by contractors' employees for work-related injuries, and have successfully handled many appeals involving the California Supreme Court's landmark decision in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.  Our knowledge of the law and the policy behind the law, developed over many years, assures you expert representation on appeal in this ever-changing area of the law.

Contact Stephen E. Norris or John A. Taylor, Jr. for more information about our Premises Liability practice.

Representative Wins

Representative Briefs

  • 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016)

    Petition for writ of mandate successfully arguing that a fitness center’s liability release barred plaintiffs’ claim for ordinary negligence, and that the fitness center’s failure to dial 911 sooner did not constitute gross negligence as a matter of law.

  • Laico v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. (2004)

    Appellant’s opening brief arguing a property owner was not liable for injuries caused by chemicals on premises leased by plaintiff’s employer from landowner, where landowner had no knowledge of dangerous condition and exercised no control over leased premises.

  • Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001)

    California Supreme Court amicus brief arguing that the plaintiff could not show that the failure to provide additional security guards was a substantial factor in causing her injuries; a speculative possibility that additional daytime security guards or functioning entrance gates might have prevented the assault on the plaintiff was insufficient to show causation.