Premises liability ordinarily stops at the property line. A landowner controls its own land and answers for hazards on it. But business and institutional landowners often send visitors off-site: to an overflow parking lot across the street, a shuttle stop down the block, or a satellite entrance reached by a public sidewalk. When a visitor is hurt in the space between, the question is whether the landowner's duty followed them. In Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church, 3 Cal.5th 1077 (2017), the California Supreme Court answered that question for one common scenario, and the answer was no.
The facts
Grace Family Church maintained an overflow parking lot across a busy, multi-lane public street from its main facility. On the night of the incident, the plaintiff was directed by a church attendant to park in the overflow lot. To reach the church, he crossed the street at a location without a crosswalk or traffic signal and was struck by a car. He sued the church, alleging it was negligent in locating the overflow lot where invitees would have to cross a dangerous street, and in failing to provide assistance or direct invitees to a safer crossing.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the church. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the church owed a duty to its invitees in these circumstances. The Supreme Court granted review.
The holding
The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Liu, reversed the Court of Appeal and held that a landowner that does no more than site and maintain a parking lot that requires its invitees to cross a public street to reach the landowner's premises does not owe a duty to assist invitees in crossing that street.
The court began from the general duty of care in Civil Code section 1714 and asked whether the Rowland v. Christian factors justified an exception for this category of cases. The court analyzed the issue at a categorical level, consistent with its approach in Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery, rather than on the specific facts of the plaintiff's crossing.
Foreseeability alone was not enough
The court acknowledged that it was foreseeable that an invitee crossing a public street to reach the church could be struck by a car. Foreseeability favored a duty. But the court found that several other Rowland factors weighed against imposing one.
The policy factors
The court emphasized that the church did not control the public street, could not alter its design, and had no authority over the drivers using it. The danger came from the street and traffic, not from any condition the church created on its own land. The court also expressed concern about the burden on the many landowners, including small businesses, churches, and other organizations, whose lots or overflow parking require invitees to cross public roads. Imposing a duty to assist in those circumstances, the court reasoned, could lead landowners to stop providing overflow parking altogether, which would not improve safety. And the court observed that the invitee, as a pedestrian, was in at least as good a position as the landowner to judge the hazard and choose a safe crossing.
What the court left open
Vasilenko's holding is narrower than it may first appear, and the court was explicit about the scenarios it was not deciding. The opinion addressed a landowner that does no more than site and maintain a lot requiring a street crossing. It did not address cases in which the landowner's conduct increases the risk of the crossing, such as obstructing visibility with landscaping or signage, creating conditions on its own property that funnel invitees toward a dangerous crossing point, or otherwise contributing to the hazard. The court distinguished prior cases where landowners had been held to owe duties because they created or exacerbated the danger to people outside their property.
That distinction is the most important practical takeaway. Vasilenko forecloses a claim premised solely on the location of a parking lot across a public street. It does not foreclose claims grounded in affirmative conduct that makes the off-site hazard worse.
Why it matters for case-building
Vasilenko comes up in a range of premises and pedestrian cases, and its framework guides how plaintiffs should investigate and plead.
Look for conduct, not just location
When an invitee is injured off-site, investigate what the landowner did beyond siting the lot. Did the landowner's agents direct invitees to a specific crossing? Did the landowner place signage, fencing, or landscaping that obstructed drivers' views or channeled pedestrians to a dangerous point? Did conditions on the landowner's own property, such as an exit placed midblock, effectively route invitees into traffic? Each of those facts moves the case away from the scenario Vasilenko addressed.
Control matters
The court's reasoning rested heavily on the church's lack of control over the street. Where a landowner exercises control over an adjacent area, such as through an easement, a maintenance agreement, a permit for a private crosswalk, or a practice of managing traffic during events, the control element changes. Discovery should explore any such arrangements.
Special relationships
Vasilenko addressed a general invitee relationship. Where a special relationship gives rise to a heightened duty, as in some school, care facility, or common carrier contexts, the analysis may differ, consistent with the court's later framework in Brown v. USA Taekwondo for duties arising from special relationships.
Other defendants
Where Vasilenko bars a claim against the landowner, the driver remains liable, and a public entity may face a dangerous condition claim if the street's design contributed. Government claim deadlines apply and should be calendared immediately. Our auto accidents coverage addresses pedestrian claims against drivers, and premises duty issues more broadly are covered under premises liability.
Pleading after Vasilenko
- Avoid complaints that rest solely on the location of off-site parking.
- Plead specific affirmative conduct by the landowner that increased the risk, with supporting facts.
- Plead any control the landowner exercised over the area where the injury occurred.
- Identify any special relationship that supports a heightened duty.
- Name other potentially responsible parties, including the driver and any public entity, and comply with claim presentation requirements.
The bottom line
Vasilenko sets a clear rule for the simplest case: a landowner is not liable merely because its overflow lot requires invitees to cross a public street. But the opinion carefully preserved claims where the landowner's own conduct or control contributes to the danger. For plaintiffs, the work is in the investigation. Find what the landowner did beyond locating the lot, and the duty analysis changes.
