Code Details

Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3273.69] ( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725] ( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 664, Sec. 38.5. Effective January 1, 2003.)

Civil Code § 1708 Summary

California Civil Code § 1708 establishes a fundamental legal obligation that every individual has to refrain from causing harm to another person, their property, or their legal rights. This duty exists independently of any contractual agreement. Essentially, it means that all people are expected to act in a way that avoids injuring others or infringing upon their rights, forming a foundational principle for tort law and personal injury liability in California.

Purpose of Civil Code § 1708 – Duty of Ordinary Care

The legislative purpose behind Civil Code § 1708 is to codify a universal and inherent duty of care that applies to all individuals in society. This statute exists to ensure that people are held accountable for actions or inactions that cause harm to others, even in the absence of a formal agreement. By establishing this fundamental obligation to “abstain from injuring,” the law seeks to promote public safety, protect individual rights, and maintain an orderly society where individuals are responsible for the impact of their conduct on others. It serves as a cornerstone for civil liability, providing the initial legal basis for claims where one person’s actions have caused damage to another.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 1708 – Duty of Ordinary Care

Consider a scenario where Alex is driving his car and, while distracted by his phone, he drifts into the adjacent lane and sideswipes another vehicle driven by Brenda. Brenda suffers whiplash and her car sustains significant damage. Under Civil Code § 1708, Alex had a duty, independent of any contract, to abstain from injuring Brenda or damaging her property. By driving while distracted and causing the collision, Alex breached this fundamental duty. This breach of the duty of ordinary care, combined with other elements like causation and damages, would form the basis for Brenda’s personal injury and property damage claim against Alex for negligence.

Related Statutes

• Civil Code § 1714 – Liability for Negligent and Willful Acts: This is the most directly related statute. While Civil Code § 1708 establishes the general duty not to injure, Civil Code § 1714 builds upon this by specifying that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their willful acts or their “want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.” It defines negligence and outlines the circumstances under which an individual is held liable for failing to exercise ordinary care.
• Civil Code § 3333 – Measure of Damages for Torts: This statute is commonly referenced in personal injury cases after a breach of duty (like that established by § 1708) has been proven. It defines the general measure of damages in tort actions, stating that a plaintiff can recover the amount that will compensate them for all detriment proximately caused by the breach of an obligation not arising from contract.

Case Law Interpreting Civil Code § 1708 – Duty of Ordinary Care

While Civil Code § 1708 establishes the fundamental duty, its application is frequently seen in conjunction with Civil Code § 1714, which more specifically addresses liability for negligent acts. Courts often cite both statutes to underscore the foundational principle of a general duty of care.

A significant case that discusses Civil Code § 1708 in establishing the general duty of care is:

• [Kesner v. Superior Court (2017) 1 Cal.5th 975](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13966035029496013387&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000000000)

In *Kesner*, the California Supreme Court discussed the foundational nature of Civil Code § 1708 and Civil Code § 1714, stating that “[t]hese two sections establish the general duty of ordinary care owed to all persons.” (See *Kesner v. Superior Court*, 1 Cal.5th 975, 990, fn. 3 (2017)). The court further noted, citing *Erlich v. Menezes* (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 551, that a breach of duty under these sections gives rise to a tort action. This highlights that § 1708 provides the bedrock principle that every individual must refrain from causing injury or infringing upon the rights of others, forming a primary basis for tort liability.

Why Civil Code § 1708 – Duty of Ordinary Care Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Code § 1708 is an indispensable and foundational statute in California personal injury litigation. It lays the groundwork for nearly every claim asserting negligence, an essential element of which is proving that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.

• For Plaintiffs: This statute is crucial as it establishes the initial “duty” element that must be proven in a negligence claim. It empowers victims to pursue legal action by affirming that all individuals have a basic obligation to act carefully and avoid causing harm. A plaintiff’s attorney will use this statute to demonstrate that the defendant had a fundamental legal responsibility to their client, providing the bedrock upon which allegations of a breach of that duty are built. It underpins the entire framework of accountability for careless behavior.
• For Defendants: While the existence of a general duty under § 1708 is rarely disputed, defendants will typically focus their arguments on whether their actions met the standard of “ordinary care” implied by the duty, or whether their conduct was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. However, the statute clearly establishes the universal nature of the duty, meaning defendants cannot easily escape the premise that they owed *some* level of care to the plaintiff.
• Overall Relevance: Civil Code § 1708 serves as a constant reminder that individual actions have consequences and that society expects its members to act with a reasonable degree of caution to prevent harm. For both clients seeking justice and lawyers navigating complex liability issues, understanding this fundamental duty is paramount to building a strong personal injury case.