Premises Liability — Discovery for the MSJ Record

Four premises liability MSJ proceedings from our analysis of California tentatives show what actually decides these motions -- and what the discovery record needs to look like to win or survive them.

What the corpus shows:

• Trivial defect (Maldonado v. City of Pasadena, Pasadena Dept P, 5/5/26): MSJ granted for the city and the abutting property owner under the Stack v. City of Lemoore holistic multi-factor framework. The physical record -- measurements, photographs, site conditions -- was undisputed. There was no claimant counter-record on Stack factors.

• Constructive notice failure (Tipton v. BJ's Restaurants, Pomona Dept H, 5/7/26): MSJ granted on a slip-and-fall. The court narrowed Scott v. Alpha Beta Co., 104 Cal.App.3d 305 (1980) -- the rainy-day customer-tracking-water presumption does not apply unless high foot traffic, non-absorbent flooring, AND substantial likelihood of water accumulation are all present. Where those conditions are absent, claimant must build actual constructive notice on duration and inspection frequency. No such record existed.

• Statutory exclusion (Hau v. Nguyen, Orange County, April 2026): MSJ granted for a homeowner where the claimant was excluded from "employee" status under Lab. Code § 3352(a)(8) (fewer than 52 hours worked in the 90-day window) AND there was no evidence of a hazardous condition. Two independent dispositive lanes.

• Exculpatory clause (Fierro v. Stadco LA LLC / SoFi Stadium, Inglewood Dept 5, 5/4/26): MSJ granted in part on Diamond v. Schweitzer, 110 Cal.App.5th 866 (2025) -- sporting-venue exculpatory clauses survive the Tunkl public-interest exception. But one defendant lost protection because the clause referenced "corporate affiliates" without defining them; the unnamed affiliate was not covered. The physical waiver scope, not just its existence, is what matters.

What this means for claimant discovery strategy.

In all four corpus outcomes the property owner won because the claimant's record was thin or absent on the decisive issue. Claimant discovery has one goal: build the factual record that creates a triable issue on the issue that would otherwise end the case.

• Against trivial defect: claimant needs independent site documentation -- photographs with scale reference, measurements, expert declaration on Stack factors (lighting, traffic, prior incidents, aggravating conditions). Do not let property owner's measurements be the only record.
• Against constructive notice failure: build the duration record through property owner's own documents (inspection logs, maintenance records, employee schedules, video). If Scott v. Alpha Beta does not apply, you need direct evidence of how long the condition existed.
• Against § 3352(a)(8) exclusion: document hours independently. Time records, communications, job records, and testimony from witnesses who can establish total hours are the counter-record.
• Against exculpatory clause: analyze the waiver scope. Which defendants are named? Which affiliates are defined? Is the activity within the waiver's scope? A waiver that fails to cover one defendant or one type of injury is potentially a full damages avenue against that party.

Note on "property owner." Throughout these components, "property owner" refers to any party defending a premises liability claim -- including fee owners, commercial lessees, occupiers, and property managers. Duty in California premises liability attaches to anyone who owns, leases, occupies, or controls property. See CACI 1000; Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968).

Note on MSJ roles. In premises liability practice, the property owner is almost always the moving party on MSJ. These claimant discovery components are organized around building the record to oppose that motion. The exception is summary adjudication of a specific defense (e.g., claimant moves to knock out the § 3352(a)(8) defense where hours-worked records are unambiguous), which uses some of the same discovery requests from a different strategic posture.