One of the significant challenges for a claimant or prospective plaintiff in a premises liability case is often centered around the issue of liability. In such cases, the defense commonly focuses on disputing liability at trial. A prevalent concern during consultations with potential clients is the issue of trivial defects. This is particularly evident when individuals recount incidents involving seemingly minor defects, such as small cracks in a restaurant floor or slightly lifted tiles.

California incorporates the trivial defect doctrine, enshrined in case law, providing defendants with a means to argue against liability due to the purported insignificance of the defect. This doctrine allows defendants to assert that the defect was so minute that even with reasonable care and property inspections, they would not have reasonably discovered it.

To succeed in a premises liability case, it is essential to demonstrate that the landowner or controller had notice of the potentially dangerous condition. While actual notice implies direct knowledge of the problem, constructive notice is often crucial in establishing liability. Constructive notice hinges on the argument that the property owner, by failing to conduct reasonable periodic inspections, overlooked the hazardous condition.

The law recognizes the concept of a trivial defect, considering factors like a quarter-inch difference between elevations as a potential defense for the property owner. Despite the challenge this presents, the pursuit of a viable premises liability case necessitates the early involvement of experts. Engineers, for example, play a crucial role in measuring and documenting the conditions, performing coefficient of friction tests, and evaluating the severity of the dangerous condition.

Taking an assertive approach from the outset, particularly in documenting the cause of the fall and the extent of the hazardous condition, becomes pivotal in the success or failure of premises liability cases.