Liability & LegalQuestion 106 of 200

Under Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, California premises-liability duty is determined by:

a.A multi-factor reasonableness analysis — including foreseeability of harm, certainty of injury, connection between conduct and injury, moral blame, policy of preventing harm, burden of precaution, and consequences for the community
b.Whether the plaintiff paid an admission fee
c.The rigid common-law distinctions between invitee, licensee, and trespasser
d.Whether the property is residential or commercial

Explanation

Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 abolished California's rigid common-law landowner-duty categories (invitee/licensee/trespasser) and replaced them with a general reasonable-care duty analyzed through a multi-factor balancing test. The Rowland factors include: foreseeability of harm; degree of certainty of injury; closeness of connection between conduct and injury; moral blame; policy of preventing future harm; burden to defendant; and consequences for the community. For PPOs and property owners, the takeaway is that duty is contextual and turns heavily on foreseeability — a critical concept the Delgado line of cases (covered in next question) refined for third-party criminal acts.

Law Reference: Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108

Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.

Related questions on this topic

Last reviewed: · editorial process

PrepPass Editorial Team · Verified against California BSIS Guard Card Exam · How we review
Report