What is the burden of proving negligence against a premises owner?

It is undisputed that to prove negligence, plaintiff would have to establish the elements of duty, breach, causation and damages. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.) On appeal, plaintiff focuses on the cause of action for premises liability. To establish negligence on this theory, plaintiff would have to prove that defendant had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises and that it had such notice in time to correct the condition. (Id. at p. 1203.) A business owner exercises ordinary care "by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers, and the care required is commensurate with the risks involved." (Id. at p. 1205.) "Because the owner is not the insurer of the visitor's personal safety . . . the owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is a key to establishing its liability. Although the owner's lack of knowledge is not a defense, `[t]o impose liability for injuries suffered by an invitee due to [a] defective condition of the premises, the owner or occupier "must have either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or have been able by the exercise of ordinary care to discover the condition, which if known to him, he should realize as involving an unreasonable risk to invitees on his premises. . . ." ' " (Id. at p. 1206.)

Where, as here, a claim of negligence is based on an alleged failure to correct a dangerous condition, "the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the owner had notice of the defect in sufficient time to correct it. [Citation.] The courts' reasoning is that if the burden of proving lack of notice were placed on the owner in a slip-and-fall case, where the source of the dangerous condition or the length of time it existed cannot be shown, failure to meet the burden would require a finding of liability, effectively rendering the owner an insurer of the safety of those who enter the premises. [Citation.] Several courts believe that shifting the burden to the defendant would, contrary to existing negligence law, permit an inference of negligence to be drawn against the owner based solely on the fact that the fall or accident occurred." (Ortega v. Kmart Corp., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1206.)