Duty of Care

Duty of care is the threshold question in every negligence case — before asking whether a defendant acted carelessly, the court must first determine whether a duty existed at all.

Duty of Care in Personal Injury Cases

California's foundational duty-of-care statute is Civil Code § 1714, which establishes that everyone owes ordinary care to others in the management of their person and property. The California Supreme Court interpreted this broadly in Rowland v. Christian (1968), establishing a general duty of care subject to policy-based exceptions.

The Rowland factors. When courts analyze whether a duty exists in a novel situation, they apply the multi-factor test from Rowland v. Christian: foreseeability of harm; degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury; closeness of connection between defendant's conduct and injury; moral blame; policy of preventing future harm; extent of burden on the defendant; and consequences to the community of imposing liability.

Drivers. Drivers owe a duty of reasonable care to other drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians on the road. Vehicle Code § 22350 (the basic speed law) and other traffic statutes establish the standard of care in many driving contexts.

Property owners. Under premises liability law, the standard of care owed by a property owner depends on the visitor's status — invitee, licensee, or trespasser — though California largely moved to a general reasonableness standard for most visitors under Rowland.

Medical professionals. Doctors and healthcare providers owe a duty to exercise the degree of care, skill, and treatment consistent with what a reasonably competent medical professional in the same specialty would provide in similar circumstances.

How Duty of Care Works in Practice

Duty is a question of law decided by the court, not the jury. The jury decides whether the duty was breached — but the threshold question of whether a duty existed at all is for the judge.

In most personal injury cases — car accidents, slip and falls, dog bites — the existence of a duty is well-established and rarely contested. The disputed issues are typically breach, causation, and damages.

Duty becomes contested in more complex cases: Does a social host owe a duty to third parties injured by an intoxicated guest? Does a school district owe a duty to students injured off campus? Does a property owner owe a duty to trespassers? Courts apply the Rowland factors to determine the answer.

No duty — no case. If a court finds no duty, the case is over regardless of how severe the plaintiff's injuries are. Duty is the gatekeeper of the entire negligence framework.

California-Specific Duty Rules

California's duty-of-care framework is notably broad compared to many other states. The general duty rule of Civil Code § 1714, interpreted through Rowland, imposes a duty of reasonable care as the starting point — exceptions are carved out by statute or policy, rather than by narrow common-law categories.

California has eliminated the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions for most cases (retained for adult trespassers under Civil Code § 847). Social host liability exists but is limited — California does not impose dram shop liability on social hosts serving adults under Business and Professions Code § 25602.

Government entities face special duty rules. Under the Government Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code § 815 et seq.), public entities are immune from liability unless a specific statute imposes a duty. The analysis of duty is fundamentally different for government defendants.

Related Legal Terms