How do I prove a slip and fall case in California?

By showing the property owner failed to use reasonable care to keep the premises safe and that the failure caused the fall. Civil Code section 1714 supplies the general duty of care, and under Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200 the owner must have had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

California premises liability is ordinary negligence: everyone is responsible for injuries caused by failing to use ordinary care in managing their property (Civil Code section 1714). The contested element is nearly always notice. Under Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, a business is liable for a dangerous condition it created or actually knew about, or one that existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it — which is why inspection logs, sweep records, and evidence of how long the hazard sat there decide these cases. Secure the proof immediately: photographs of the exact condition and your footwear, the incident report, witness contacts, and a written demand that the business preserve surveillance video before routine overwriting erases it. Comparative fault reduces recovery rather than barring it. Falls on public property proceed instead under Government Code section 835's dangerous-condition standard, with a six-month government claim requirement, and the lawsuit deadline is generally two years (Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1).

Authority: Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200