CA Premises Liability — Deposition Strategy

Who to depose

Defendant's person most knowledgeable (PMK) on:

• Inspection and maintenance procedures for [specific location type]
• Incident report intake and storage procedures
• Training on hazard identification and reporting

The inspector on duty -- the person identified in interrogatory responses as responsible for [location] on [date]. This is the key witness for constructive notice: what did they see, when did they last inspect, what was the protocol.

Defendant's facilities or maintenance manager -- the person who would know about prior complaints, repair history, and whether the defect was known before the incident.

Plaintiff (if defending) -- discovery on assumption of risk, knowledge of the condition, prior visits to the property, and the facts surrounding the fall itself.

Topic areas by decisive issue

Notice

• Inspection protocol: frequency, method, documentation requirements
• Last inspection before incident: who, when, what was observed
• Prior incidents at the same location: what happened, what was done
• Surveillance footage: coverage, retention policy, what was preserved

Trivial defect

• When did defendant first become aware of the defect
• Has the defect been measured? By whom, when, with what instrument
• Has it been repaired or altered before or after the incident
• What is the repair history at this location

Contractor and recreational exclusions

• Privette doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993)): structure of the employment/contractor relationship, which entity directed and controlled plaintiff's work, whether defendant retained any supervisory role over the manner of plaintiff's work
• Civil Code § 846 (recreational immunity): nature of the activity, whether any fee was charged, nature of any invitation extended to plaintiff
• Exculpatory clause: how the clause was presented, signed, and what activities it covered

Key deposition: the inspector on duty

Based on our analysis of California premises liability MSJ tentatives, the inspection-log gap is the issue that most often defeats the motion on notice. The inspector's deposition is where that gap either holds or collapses. Key questions:

• What was the protocol for inspecting [area type]? (Tie to the written policy)
• When did you last inspect this area before the incident?
• What did you observe? Was the condition present?
• If there is a gap in the log: why is there no entry for [time period]? Were you on break, assigned elsewhere, or simply did not inspect?

The goal is either a clean timeline that supports the defense, or an admission that the area was not inspected during the relevant window.

Responding party: scope and precision

The PMK deposition will target the broadest possible scope -- inspection procedures for all areas, all incident types, all time periods. Preparation should focus the witness on the specific location and time period at issue. Facility-wide testimony about procedures that did not apply to this area or this incident creates more material for the separate statement than the facts support.