Here’s some “show me” for you. This is from the California jury instructions dealing with premises liability.
take note of #2 and #4. Notice the word: negligence. Notice that the instructions state the negligence is what allows liability to be placed upon the defendant. That means no negligence, no liability.1000. Premises Liability—Essential Factual Elements
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed because of the way [name of defendant] managed [his/her/its] property. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] [owned/leased/occupied/controlled] the property;
2. That [name of defendant] was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
3. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
4. That [name of defendant]’s negligence was a substantial factor in
causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
That proves negligence is required and it proves you are wrong.
Also notice that in this excerpt from sources and authority (describes from where the instructions were derived) it is clearly stated that premises liability is based on negligence.
• “Since Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561], the liability of landowners for injuries to people on their property has been governed by general negligence principles.” (Pineda v. Ennabe (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1407 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 206].)
• “Premises liability is a form of negligence based on the holding in Rowland v. Christian, supra, 69 Cal.2d 108, and is described as follows: The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence.” (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1619 [264 Cal.Rptr. 756].