Personal Injury Complaint - Slip and Fall - California

[LAW FIRM LETTERHEAD]
[Address] • [City, State ZIP] • [Telephone] • [Email]
Attorneys for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Parties & Service
2. Jurisdiction & Venue
3. General Allegations
4. First Cause of Action – Premises Liability
5. Second Cause of Action – Negligent Failure to Warn
6. Damages
7. Prayer for Relief
8. Demand for Jury Trial
9. Conditions Precedent
10. Verification (Optional)

1. PARTIES & SERVICE
   1.1 Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] (“Plaintiff”) is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of the State of California, County of [COUNTY].
   1.2 Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME 1] (“Defendant 1”) is, on information and belief, a [corporation/LLC/individual] that owned, leased, operated, managed, controlled, and/or maintained the real property commonly known as [PROPERTY ADDRESS] (the “Premises”) at all relevant times.
   1.3 Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME 2] (“Defendant 2”) is, on information and belief, a [corporation/LLC/individual] that [describe involvement—e.g., property manager, janitorial contractor].
   1.4 Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474.
   1.5 Each Defendant, including DOES 1–50, was the agent, ostensible agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, alter ego, and/or co-conspirator of each of the remaining Defendants and, in doing the things alleged, acted within the course and scope of such relationship.

2. JURISDICTION & VENUE
   2.1 This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds $35,000, exclusive of costs, making the action an Unlimited Civil Case. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 85, 86, 88 (threshold raised from $25,000 to $35,000 by Stats. 2023, Ch. 861 (SB 71), effective January 1, 2024).
   2.2 Venue is proper in this County because the tortious conduct alleged herein occurred in this County and the real property that is the subject of this action is located here. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 395(a).
   2.3 Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10, this Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant.

3. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
   3.1 On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff lawfully entered the Premises as a [business invitee/social guest/other] for the purpose of [purpose].

3.1a Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), abolished the common-law distinctions among invitees, licensees, and trespassers for purposes of a landowner's duty of care; the unified duty of ordinary care under Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 governs, subject only to policy factors bearing on the scope of that duty (e.g., foreseeability, burden of preventing the harm).
3.2 At that time and place, a dangerous condition existed on the Premises, to wit: [describe condition—e.g., liquid accumulation on floor near beverage station with no warning signs] (the “Dangerous Condition”).
3.3 Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, of the Dangerous Condition and failed to correct it, cordon it off, provide adequate warning, and/or otherwise make the Premises safe for foreseeable users.
3.4 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff slipped, fell, and suffered severe bodily injury, including but not limited to [list injuries], pain and suffering, past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, and other damages according to proof.
3.5 Comparative Fault: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were the substantial and primary cause of the incident. Should Defendants contend Plaintiff was comparatively negligent, the doctrine of pure comparative fault under California law (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975)) governs apportionment of damages.

4. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Premises Liability – Negligence, Cal. Civ. Code § 1714)
   (Against All Defendants and DOES 1–50)

4.1 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1.1 through 3.5 as though fully set forth herein.
4.2 At all relevant times, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition, to inspect for dangerous conditions, to repair and/or warn of such conditions, and to exercise ordinary care in the management of the Premises. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a).
4.3 Defendants breached said duty by, inter alia:
(a) Failing to properly inspect and maintain the Premises;
(b) Allowing the Dangerous Condition to exist;
(c) Failing to place warning signs or barriers; and
(d) Violating applicable building, safety, and health codes, if the violation, causation, protected-harm, and protected-class conditions for the rebuttable Cal. Evid. Code § 669 presumption are met;
4.4 Defendants’ breach was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
4.5 As a direct result, Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount that will be proven at trial but which exceed the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

5. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Negligent Failure to Warn)
   (Against All Defendants and DOES 1–50)

5.1 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1.1 through 4.5.
5.2 Defendants owed a duty to reasonably warn foreseeable users of the Premises of the Dangerous Condition.
5.3 Defendants negligently and unlawfully failed to provide any warning, signage, or other notice of the Dangerous Condition.
5.4 Defendants’ failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages as alleged herein.

6. DAMAGES
   6.1 Past and future medical expenses according to proof.
   6.2 Past and future lost earnings and loss of earning capacity according to proof.
   6.3 General damages for pain, suffering, inconvenience, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
   6.4 Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law.
   6.5 Costs of suit herein incurred.
   6.6 Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

7. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
   A. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at trial;
   B. For costs of suit herein;
   C. For interest at the legal rate;
   D. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

8. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
   Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right pursuant to the California Constitution, article I, § 16, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 631.

9. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
   All conditions precedent to filing this action have been performed, occurred, or have been excused.

10. VERIFICATION (Optional, Not Required for PI)

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on [DATE] at [CITY], California.

__________________________________
[PLAINTIFF NAME]

SIGNATURE BLOCK

DATED: [___]

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (SBN [XXXXXX])
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

ADDITIONAL PRACTICE NOTES

1. Statute of Limitations: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two years) applies to personal-injury claims. Confirm incident date before filing.
2. Comparative Fault Affirmative Pleading: Not required in complaint; adequately addressed in ¶3.5 to anticipate comparative-fault defenses. California's comparative-fault rule is a judicial doctrine (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975)), not a statute.
3. Government Claims: If any Defendant is a public entity, a government claim must be presented per Cal. Gov't Code §§ 910–915, generally within six months of accrual for personal-injury/property-damage claims (Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2); suit may not be filed until the claim is acted on or deemed rejected.
4. Doe Amendments: Use Judicial Council Form CIV-012 (Amendment to Complaint) when true names are discovered.
5. Punitive Damages: Consider Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 standards (malice, oppression, or fraud, proven by clear and convincing evidence) before adding such claim. California has no statutory cap on punitive damages; only constitutional due-process limits apply (BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)).
6. ADA/Accessibility: If the Premises is a public accommodation and ADA violations contributed, assess adding Unruh/ADA counts.
7. Arbitration Clauses: Review any written agreements (e.g., membership contracts) for binding arbitration and incorporate as appropriate, or plead unconscionability.
8. Liability Caps: California imposes no general damages cap for slip-and-fall or other ordinary premises-liability cases. MICRA's noneconomic-damages limits (Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.2) apply only to professional negligence claims against a health-care provider or health-care institution and are irrelevant to a standard slip-and-fall claim; do not cite MICRA in this pleading unless a health-care provider defendant is actually involved.
9. Judicial Council Form: Form PLD-PI-001 (Complaint—Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death) and its attachment PLD-PI-001(4) (Cause of Action—Premises Liability) are approved for OPTIONAL use under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.12; they are not mandatory statewide, though some judges/courtrooms request the Judicial Council form format. Confirm local rules before choosing a narrative-format complaint over the Judicial Council form.