Kermani LLP focused instead on what the landlord allegedly knew before the incident. The central issue became whether he had received sufficient warning that his son posed a serious threat and whether he failed to act despite that notice. The case began with no settlement offer and a complete denial of liability. After developing evidence concerning prior warnings, obtaining critical deposition testimony, and evaluating the risks of trial, the firm secured a $2 million settlement for the family. The settlement included no admission of liability.
What the case turned on
Primary liability issue
Whether the landlord could be held responsible for failing to act despite alleged prior warnings about a third-party threat
Key evidence
The landlord’s deposition and evidence concerning previous warnings
Primary defense
The landlord argued that his son alone was responsible for the death
What Happened at the Palm Springs Property?
The victim was a tenant living at a rental property in Palm Springs. She was killed by the landlord’s son. There was little question about who physically caused the death. The more difficult issue was whether the landlord’s own conduct before the incident could create legal responsibility.
The surviving family therefore faced a situation that can arise in complex wrongful death claims in California: the person who directly caused the harm was not necessarily the only person whose actions needed to be examined. Kermani LLP investigated the events leading up to the killing, including whether warning signs existed, whether those warnings reached the landlord, and whether he had an opportunity to respond before his tenant was harmed.
When Is a Landlord Liable for a Tenant's Death in California?
California law does not make a landlord an insurer of tenant safety, and a landlord is not automatically responsible for crimes committed by third parties. But the law does impose a duty of reasonable care, and that duty can extend to protecting tenants from a known danger.
The starting point is Civil Code § 1714, which makes everyone responsible for injuries caused by a failure to use ordinary care. For a claim that a defendant failed to protect someone from a third party, Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal.5th 204 (2021), sets California's current two-step test: first, whether a special relationship exists between the defendant and the victim or the defendant and the wrongdoer; second, whether the factors in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968), chief among them foreseeability, support imposing a duty. Courts have long treated the landlord-tenant relationship as a special relationship, so the first step was satisfied here. The fight was over the second.
For third-party violence specifically, Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, 6 Cal.4th 666 (1993), held that the scope of a property owner's duty depends on how foreseeable the crime was, and that a high degree of foreseeability, usually shown by prior similar incidents or specific warnings, is required before an owner must take burdensome protective measures. In Castaneda v. Olsher, 41 Cal.4th 1205 (2007), the Court applied that framework to a landlord accused of renting to gang members and ruled for the landlord, holding that general knowledge of gang activity was not enough to require him to refuse to rent or to evict. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill, 36 Cal.4th 224 (2005), marks the other side of the line: specific knowledge of an imminent threat creates a duty to take at least minimal protective steps. And Uccello v. Laudenslayer, 44 Cal.App.3d 504 (1975), holds that a landlord with actual knowledge of a danger on the property and the power to remove it owes a duty to do so.
These cases are why prior notice was the entire case. General unease about a relative is Castaneda; specific, repeated warnings about a specific person are Delgado and Uccello. Without evidence that the landlord knew his son was dangerous, the defense would have been correct that no duty existed. With it, and with the landlord's control over who was allowed on his property, his failure to act became a question of ordinary negligence that a jury could decide.
Lost a loved one in a case where someone else knew the danger? Call Kermani LLP for a free case evaluation.
Why Holding the Landlord Responsible Was Difficult
The defense had a seemingly straightforward argument. The landlord did not commit the killing, and his son was the person directly responsible. From the defense perspective, the landlord could not be expected to control another adult and should not be financially responsible for conduct he did not personally carry out.
That argument made the case substantially more difficult than one involving a defendant who directly caused an injury. Kermani LLP could not rely simply on the fact that a fatal incident occurred at a rental property. Our legal team needed to establish an independent basis for holding the landlord responsible for his own conduct.
As Hani Ganji, who led the case, explained:
Just because a tragedy occurs, it doesn’t mean the law protects the victim’s family. So it’s up to us to find the law and work within the confines of the law that gives the client access to justice.
Hani Ganji
The Prior Warnings That Became Central to the Case
Kermani LLP developed evidence indicating that the landlord had allegedly received numerous warnings concerning the threat posed by his son. Those warnings mattered because they changed how the fatal incident could be viewed.
The Deposition That Strengthened the Liability Claim
The landlord’s deposition became one of the most important developments in the case. Because the liability theory depended heavily on prior knowledge, questioning the landlord under oath provided an opportunity to examine what warnings he had received, what he understood about the danger, and how he responded.
Under questioning, the landlord gave testimony that, in Kermani LLP's view, showed he had been warned repeatedly about his son and had not acted on those warnings. That testimony strengthened Kermani LLP’s ability to challenge the defense position that the killing was entirely disconnected from anything the landlord had done or failed to do.
As Hani Ganji put it:
This was a case that was really difficult to prove, and the outcome reflects attorney-driven expertise in working up the liability issue.
Hani Ganji
Testing How a Jury Might View the Case
Even with stronger evidence, Kermani LLP still had to consider how a jury might react to the unusual facts. The case involved not only a landlord and tenant, but also a father and his adult son. That relationship introduced an emotional element that could affect how jurors interpreted the landlord’s responsibility.
The firm used focus groups to test the arguments and evaluate potential jury reactions. Some participants sympathized with the landlord as a father dealing with a son he could not fully control. That response highlighted an important trial risk. Jurors could believe that warnings existed and still hesitate to impose significant civil responsibility on the landlord for another adult’s actions.
How a $0 Position Became a $2 Million Resolution
At the beginning of the case, the defense offered nothing. Its position was that responsibility belonged entirely to the landlord’s son and that there was no basis for holding the landlord accountable.
That position became harder to maintain as the evidence developed. The case could increasingly be framed around the landlord’s own response to known risks rather than around an attempt to make a parent automatically responsible for an adult child.
At the same time, Kermani LLP recognized that the claim still carried meaningful trial risk because of the focus-group response. Those competing considerations created the conditions for a negotiated resolution, and the matter ultimately settled for $2 million.
Why the $2 Million Settlement Made Strategic Sense
Going to trial could potentially have produced a greater recovery, but it also carried the possibility that a jury would accept the defense theory or award significantly less. The family also would have faced additional delay and the emotional burden of presenting the circumstances of their loved one’s death in court.
The $2 million settlement allowed the family to obtain a significant recovery while avoiding those risks. It provided a measure of accountability without requiring the family to place the outcome entirely in the hands of a jury.
What This Case Shows About Third-Party Violence Claims
One of the most important lessons from this case is that an investigation should not always stop with the person who directly caused the harm. In some situations, another individual or entity may have known about a danger before the incident and had an opportunity to respond.
Questions that may become important in a third-party violence claim include:
- Were there prior threats or incidents? A history of threatening behavior may help show that the danger was not entirely unexpected.
- Were complaints or warnings made? Prior reports can become important when evaluating whether another party had notice of the risk.
- What action was taken afterward? The response to prior warnings may be relevant when examining whether reasonable steps were taken to address the danger.
A Difficult Case and a $2 Million Recovery for the Family
No financial recovery can replace a loved one. For the family, however, the settlement provided a measure of justice and accountability in a case that was difficult to prove from the beginning.
If your family lost a loved one and there are questions about whether a landlord, property owner, business, or another party failed to address a known threat, Kermani LLP can investigate the circumstances and explain the legal options that may be available. Our California wrongful death lawyers represent families in Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and throughout the state.
Contact our legal team for a free case evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Landlord Liability and Wrongful Death in California
Can a landlord be sued if a tenant is killed by someone else?
Potentially, yes. A landlord is not automatically liable for a third party's crime. California law does impose a duty of reasonable care, and a landlord who knew or should have known of a specific danger and failed to act can be held responsible. The key is notice: prior threats, complaints, incidents, or warnings that reached the landlord before the harm occurred.
Who can file a wrongful death lawsuit in California?
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, a wrongful death claim may be brought by the decedent's surviving spouse or domestic partner, children, and, if there are none, by other heirs who would inherit under California's intestacy laws. Parents and stepchildren who were financially dependent on the decedent may also qualify. A separate survival action under § 377.30 allows the estate to recover losses the decedent suffered before death. For survival actions filed on or after January 1, 2026, those losses are limited to economic damages such as medical bills and lost earnings; the temporary rule that allowed pre-death pain and suffering damages (SB 447) expired on December 31, 2025 and was not extended.
What damages are available in a California wrongful death case?
Under California's civil jury instructions (CACI 3921), a family may recover economic damages such as the financial support the decedent would have contributed, funeral and burial expenses, and the value of household services. Non-economic damages cover the loss of the decedent's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support. California does not cap wrongful death damages outside of medical malpractice cases.
How long do I have to file a wrongful death claim in California?
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, a wrongful death lawsuit must generally be filed within two years of the date of death. If a public entity is involved, a government claim must usually be presented within six months under Government Code § 911.2.
