Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Of course. A deposit is to cover any breach of your obligations under the lease, including damage wherever you cause it. Even if it was an apartment building, if you damaged a fountain outside the building they could deduct for it. When you have been in sole possession of the building and yards, you are responsible for any damage.

The last sentence is not necessarily correct, as if a third party without your knowledge of what they are about to do damages the property then you may not be negligent so not liable.

I would say the tenant is liable and a deduction may be made from the security deposit (a) upon the termination of the lease and (b) if the damage was done by the tenant or his/her guest or invitee. The weight of authority seems to hold that if the damage were done by a trespasser or vandal, the landlord, not the tenant, bears the loss. (This I find moderately surprising, as I would have thought the tenant would be responsible for ANY damage beyond "normal wear and tear," but courts seem to believe it would be unreasonable to hold the tenant liable for harm done by unknown third parties). However, the burden would be on the tenant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the damage was not caused by her/him or a guest or invitee. Finally, all of this is probably covered, with at least more or less detail, in the lease or rental agreement. If its terms don't differ too markedly from the above-described law, it will be enforced according to its terms.