You got hurt on someone else’s property. Now you’re trying to figure out your legal options, and everyone keeps throwing around different terms. “It’s a negligence case.” “No, that’s premises liability.” “Maybe both.”
What’s the difference? Does it even matter?
It does matter, actually. The type of case affects how your attorney builds your claim, what evidence they need, and sometimes which defendants they can sue. I think most people assume these are just fancy legal words for the same thing. They’re not.
Let me break down both concepts so you understand exactly what you’re dealing with.
What Is General Negligence in California?
General negligence is pretty straightforward. Someone failed to act with reasonable care, and that failure hurt you. It’s the foundation for most personal injury cases in California.
California Civil Code Section 1714(a) covers this. The law says everyone is responsible for injuries they cause through carelessness or lack of skill. Doesn’t matter if it’s a car accident, dog bite, or someone dropping something on your head.
The elements are always the same:
- Duty of care – They owed you some level of safety obligation
- Breach of duty – They failed to meet that obligation
- Causation – Their failure directly caused your injury
- Damages – You got hurt and have real losses
A driver runs a red light and hits you? That’s general negligence. They had a duty to follow traffic laws. They breached it by running the light. That caused your injuries. Pretty clear cut.
What Is Premises Liability?
Premises liability is more specific. It’s still negligence, but it only applies to unsafe conditions on someone’s property. Property owners have a duty to keep their spaces reasonably safe for visitors.
The same Civil Code section applies, but courts have added extra requirements over the years. You can’t just prove regular negligence – you need to show some special things about property ownership and control.
Here’s what makes premises liability different:
- Property control – The defendant owned, leased, or controlled the property
- Knowledge of danger – They knew or should have known about the hazard
- Failure to fix or warn – They didn’t repair the problem or warn people
- Injury from the condition – That specific hazard caused your accident
You trip over a broken step at an apartment complex? That’s premises liability. The landlord controlled the property, probably knew about the broken step (or should have), failed to fix it, and that failure caused your fall.
Key Differences Between the Two
Let me put this in a simple comparison:
Who gets sued:
- General negligence: Anyone who acted carelessly
- Premises liability: Property owners, managers, or controllers
What caused the harm:
- General negligence: Any careless action
- Premises liability: Unsafe property conditions specifically
What duty they had:
- General negligence: Act reasonably under the circumstances
- Premises liability: Maintain reasonably safe premises
What you need to prove:
- General negligence: They screwed up and hurt you
- Premises liability: They controlled property, knew about dangers, failed to fix them
What evidence matters most:
- General negligence: Witness statements, accident reports
- Premises liability: Photos of hazards, maintenance records, inspection logs
How This Affects Your Slip and Fall Case
Most slip and fall cases are premises liability cases. You fell because of something wrong with the property itself. Wet floors, broken stairs, poor lighting – these are property conditions.
But sometimes both theories apply to the same accident. Maybe you slipped on a wet floor (premises liability), but the wetness came from an employee who spilled something and didn’t clean it up (general negligence too).
Smart attorneys often plead both causes of action. It gives them more legal ammunition and sometimes lets them sue additional defendants. Why limit yourself to one theory when you might have two?
Which Type of Case Pays More?
People ask me this all the time. The answer? It doesn’t matter what you call it.
What matters is:
- How strong your evidence is
- How badly you were injured
- Whether you can prove the defendant knew about the danger
- How much insurance coverage exists
I’ve seen general negligence cases settle for millions and premises liability cases settle for thousands. I’ve also seen it the other way around. The legal label doesn’t determine your compensation – the facts do.
How a Lawyer Knows Which Theory to Use
Experienced attorneys like the team at Kubota & Craig look at several factors:
Who had control over the property when you got hurt? If it’s a rental property, was it the landlord or tenant responsible for maintenance?
What created the hazardous condition? Did someone spill something and not clean it up? Or was it a permanent problem like broken flooring?
Did the property owner know about the danger? Can you prove actual knowledge, or do you need to show they should have known through reasonable inspection?
Was someone else also acting negligently? Maybe a maintenance company failed to fix a known problem, or an employee created a hazard.
The answers help determine which legal theories apply and who to sue.
Real Case Example
I remember a case where a woman slipped at a grocery store on water from a leaking refrigerator case. The store’s maintenance logs showed they knew about the leak for weeks but kept putting off repairs. An employee also failed to put up warning signs or block off the area.
That’s both premises liability and general negligence. The store owned the property and failed to fix a known hazard (premises liability). The employee failed to take reasonable steps to protect customers (general negligence).
The attorneys sued on both theories and recovered $190,000. Would they have gotten less money pursuing just one theory? Maybe. Why risk it?
Why Both Claims Might Be Filed Together
More legal pathways give your attorney more leverage during settlement negotiations. Insurance companies can’t just knock out your entire case by challenging one legal theory.
Multiple theories might also help identify additional defendants. The landlord, tenant, and maintenance company could all bear some responsibility for your injury. Sue them all and let the court sort out percentages later.
Even if one claim gets dismissed, you still have the other one. It’s legal insurance.
Contact Kubota & Craig to Build the Right Case Strategy
Don’t get hung up on legal labels. What matters is building the strongest possible case with all available evidence and theories.
The attorneys at Kubota & Craig know how to analyze accidents and determine whether your injury involves general negligence, premises liability, or both. They handle cases throughout Orange County – Irvine, Mission Viejo, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, and beyond.
They offer free consultations and work on contingency fees. No recovery means no legal fees. You risk nothing by getting professional advice about your case.
Call today or fill out their online contact form. Whether your case involves slip and fall injuries, other premises liability claims, or general negligence, they’ll help you understand your rights and build the right strategy.
Your injury happened because someone was careless. The legal theory doesn’t change that basic fact. What changes is how your attorney proves it and gets you the compensation you deserve.
By Yoshiaki C. Kubota, Esq. | Published: October 14, 2025
About the Author:
Yoshiaki C. Kubota is a founding partner at Kubota & Craig, PC, and has been a California-licensed attorney since 1994 (State Bar #175555). With over 30 years of experience in personal injury law, he has successfully handled hundreds of premises liability and general negligence cases throughout Orange County. He holds an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell and has been recognized as a Super Lawyer from 2010-2024.
Legal Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances. This communication is attorney advertising as defined by California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 7.3. For specific legal guidance regarding your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Sources: California Civil Code Section 1714, California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 1000-1012, California Courts Self-Help Guide on Personal Injury Cases
