California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 2100 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Lopez v. S. California Rapid Transit Dist., 710 P.2d 907 (Cal. 1985).
Lopez v. S. California Rapid Transit Dist., 710 P.2d 907 (Cal. 1985). “Civil Code section 2100 provides: “A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.”
Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc., 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “( Civ. Code, § 2100.) Grotheer also alleged Wilson Creek was vicariously liable for Escape and Gallagher's conduct because the vineyard shared a special relationship with the balloon company.”
Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 290 P.3d 1158 (Cal. 2012). “” (Civ. Code, § 2100.) Although at oral argument plaintiff‟s counsel suggested she does not contend defendant was a common carrier, plaintiff‟s answer brief states: “Dr.”
Summers v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “Her Complaint asserts four state law causes of action: (1) failure to provide the utmost care and diligence in the safe carriage of Plaintiff, in violation of California Civil Code § 2100; (2) failure to provide a plane safe and fit for its purpose, in violation of California…”
Gates v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1146 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “2d 907 ] [Civ. Code, § 2100]; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.”
Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 320 P.2d 500 (Cal. 1958). “Bear in mind, however, that if any defendant failed to exercise ordinary care, and if that failure was a proximate cause of the accident in question, then, whether or not such conduct was the sole cause, the accident was not unavoidable, and the defense of unavoidability may not…”
Squaw Valley Ski Corp. v. Superior Court, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 833 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “(Civ. Code, § 2100.) *1505 As we shall explain, the trial court properly held that, in operating its chair lift facilities, Squaw Valley is a common carrier within the meaning of Civil Code section 2168 for the purpose of tort liability and that Public Utilities Code section…”
McGettigan v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7497 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “2d 616 ]), a carrier is required by statute "[to] use the utmost care and diligence for safe carriage, [to] provide everything necessary for that purpose, and [to] exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill" (Civ. Code, § 2100). This statutory duty is one "of utmost care…”
Jing Huang v. Bicycle Casino, Inc., 4 Cal. App. 5th 329 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” (Civ. Code, §2100; accord, Gomez, supra, at p.”
Holm v. Superior Court, 267 P.2d 1025 (Cal. 1954). “(Civ. Code, § 2100.) It is under a duty to employ careful drivers and acquire and maintain safe equipment.”
Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified Sch. Dist., 186 Cal. App. 3d 707 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “” 3 Civil Code section 2100 provides: “A carrier of persons for reward must use the utmost care and diligence for their safe carriage, must provide everything necessary for that purpose, and must exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.”
Brown v. Merlo, 506 P.2d 212 (Cal. 1973). “We recognize, of course, the rationality of prescribing a higher standard of care for paying customers than for nonpaying ones; the common carrier’s duty to use “utmost care” (Civ. Code, § 2100) exemplifies this principle at work.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.