CACI 1012 Knowledge of Employee Imputed to Owner
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
1012 Knowledge of Employee Imputed to Owner
If you find that the condition causing the risk of harm was created by [name of defendant] or [his/her/nonbinary pronoun/its] employee acting within the scope of [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] employment, then you must conclude that [name of defendant] knew of this condition.
Sources and Authority
•“Where the dangerous or defective condition of the property which causes the injury has been created by reason of the negligence of the owner of the property or his employee acting within the scope of the employment, the owner of the property cannot be permitted to assert that he had no notice or knowledge of the defective or dangerous condition in an action by an invitee for injuries suffered by reason of the dangerous condition. Under such circumstances knowledge thereof is imputed to him.” (Hatfield v. Levy Bros. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 798, 806 [117 P.2d 841], internal citation omitted.)
•“When an unsafe condition which causes injury to an invitee has been created by the owner of the property himself or by an employee within the scope of his employment, the invitee need not prove the owner’s notice or knowledge of the dangerous condition; the knowledge is imputed to the owner.” (Sanders v. MacFarlane’s Candies (1953) 119 Cal.App.2d 497, 501 [259 P.2d 1010], internal citation omitted.)
•“Where the evidence shows, as it does in this case, that the condition which caused the injury was created by the employees of the respondent, or the evidence is such that a reasonable inference can be drawn that the condition was created by employees of the respondent, then respondent is charged with notice of the dangerous condition.” (Oldham v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 214, 218–219 [192 P.2d 516].)