What if I slipped and fell at a business?
Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin
California State Bar #45226 ↗ · Approval recorded November 4, 2026
How we record review approvalA store may be at fault if it fails to use reasonable care to keep the site safe. A fall alone does not prove the store must pay.
In this guide
Here’s an example
A spill sits in an aisle. Staff have enough time that they should have found it, but no one cleans it up. A shopper falls.
A made-up example to explain the idea. Your facts may lead to a different answer.How the rule works
The question is usually whether the party in control used reasonable care. Proof may concern cleaning, inspections, warnings, or repairs. Notice of the hazard can be a key issue.
Legal references: [1] California Civil Code § 1714 — Responsibility for harm · [2] CACI No. 1000 — Premises liability (2026 edition)
What can change the answer?
How the hazard got there matters. So does how long it was there. Warnings, inspections, and the shopper’s own care may change the answer.
Questions people ask
Court decisions behind this answer
A case can help explain a rule. Its facts and limits matter too.
Rowland v. Christian
Supreme Court of California · 1968
69 Cal.2d 108, p. 119
The court applied reasonable-care rules to unsafe property. A visitor’s label alone did not decide the owner’s duty.
The case does not make an owner pay for every fall. Statutes and later exceptions still need review.
Ortega v. Kmart Corp.
Supreme Court of California · 2001
26 Cal.4th 1200, pp. 1203, 1210–1213
A lack of reasonable inspections may help show that a store should have found a spill.
This permits an inference from the proof. It does not make the store liable just because someone fell.
Case applicability reviewed as recorded above.
A useful next step
Take photos if safe. Note who saw the fall. Report the facts without guessing.
If you are unsure which rule applies, a lawyer can review your facts and any deadlines. Learn about GJEL’s injury representation.
The law behind this guide
The references below support the legal discussion. Their application depends on the facts.
- California Civil Code § 1714 — Responsibility for harm ↗Statute · Review recorded above
- CACI No. 1000 — Premises liability (2026 edition) ↗Jury instructions · Review recorded above
- Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 ↗Case law · Review recorded above
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200 ↗Case law · Review recorded above
Updated 2026-11-04. Read our editorial standards.