Duty of care

The obligation to use reasonable care — the first thing a negligence claim has to establish.

Without a duty there is no negligence claim, however badly you were hurt. It is rarely the fight in a vehicle case and often the whole fight in a premises case. This is general information, not legal advice.

What it means

California starts from a broad rule: everyone is responsible for an injury caused to another by their want of ordinary care in managing their person or property. That is the statute, and it is unusually general as statutes go.

For land and buildings, the Supreme Court replaced the old categories — invitee, licensee, trespasser — with a single question about whether the owner acted reasonably in the circumstances. That is why a premises case turns on facts about notice and inspection rather than on what label fits the visitor.

Duty is a question for the judge, not the jury. If the court decides no duty was owed, the case ends there regardless of what the evidence shows about carelessness.

Where this is dealt with properly

This entry is the short answer. These pages own the subject.

• Premises liability claims
• Notice and inspection
• The California injury claims process

Common questions

Does a property owner owe a duty to a trespasser?

California no longer answers that with a label. The question is whether the owner acted reasonably given everything known about the property and who was likely to be on it.

Sources: Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (a) (the general duty of ordinary care); Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108 (unified duty of care for land possessors); CACI No. 401, Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026 edition) (basic standard of care). CACI references after the first use the short form.