Property Owner Has Duty to Warn of Hazards on Adjacent Property

The California Supreme Court recently decided a case that could have a wide impact on many property owners in California. It is not uncommon for there to be a strip of land either bordering the street or the side of one's property. A property owner may maintain that strip him or herself if he or she is not happy with the way the other property owner cares for that strip.

In the case of Alcaraz vs. Vece, a tenant tripped over a poorly maintained water meter box located on a 2-ft.-wide strip of land bordering the landlord's property. The tenant broke his leg and sued the landlord for failing to warn him of that hazard. The landlord neither owned that strip of land nor did anything to maintain the utility boxes. However, being a good neighbor, the landlord did mow the grass on the strip of land. The Court held that a property owner who exercised control over another's property may be liable to persons injured on the other's property if he fails to warn those persons of known hazards.

The Court examined the control that the owner exercised over the neighbor's piece of land. In this case, the strip of land was actually owned by the city. The city owned a 10-ft.-wide strip of land, including a grassy strip on one side of the sidewalk, and the 2-ft.-wide portion on the other side of the sidewalk, which bordered the landlord's property.

If one looked at the lawn, it was not apparent that there was any difference in ownership between the landlord's land, and the 2-ft.-wide strip that was owned by the city. In looking at the control exercised by the landlord, the Court placed a great deal of importance on the fact that the landlord maintained the entire lawn in front of the apartment building, including the entire portion of the lawn that was owned by the city. There was proof that the landlord had previous knowledge that the covers on these utility boxes had sometimes been broken, and the landlord had warned some tenants of that problem.

The Court raised the following hypothetical to try to explain its reasoning in establishing potential liability to the landlord in this case:

“If a live power transmission line falls, creating a hazard, the possessor of the property on which the power line has fallen, who knows of that hazard, cannot escape liability for injuries to persons who enter the land and encounter the power lines simply because the land possessor does not own the power line and lacks the authority to disconnect the line or remove it. A possessor of land who knows of the hazard would have a duty to erect a barrier or warn persons entering the land of danger, whether or not the possessor of the land has the authority to eliminate the hazard.”

Therefore, when you become a good neighbor, and maintain a strip of land owned by the city or a strip of land bordering your property where your neighbor may be haphazard in his or her maintenance of the property, you may become liable for injuries to others. If you know of a hazard on that property, you should take whatever steps are reasonably necessary to either warn persons of that hazard, or remove the hazard. As an example, the landowner should have called the city immediately.

Abdulaziz can be reached at Abdulaziz & Grossbart, P.O. Box 15458, North Hollywood, CA 91615-5458; (818) 760-2000, Fax (818) 760-3908; or by e-mail at aglaw@earthlink.net