Cal. Codes » Government Code / TITLE 1. GENERAL / DIVISION 3.6. CLAIMS AND ACTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES / PART 2. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES / CHAPTER 1. General Provisions Relating to Liability / ARTICLE 2. Liability of Public Entities
California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 815.6 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 246 cases (104 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist., 831 P.2d 317 (Cal. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist., 831 P.2d 317 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 11× “Government Code Section 815.6 (3a) The DLSE contends that it has properly alleged a cause of action against the District under Government Code section 815.”
Nozzi v. Hous. Auth., 806 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “9 They claimed that, as relevant here, the Defendants’ failure to provide comprehensible information to Section 8 beneficiaries about the payment standard change and its effect one year in advance of the change’s implementation: (1) violated the due process clauses of the United…”
B.H. v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 361 P.3d 319 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 7× “(k); Gov. Code, § 815.6.) We further conclude that the officer had no duty to report the child abuse allegations and her investigative findings to the child welfare agency.”
State Dep't of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 349 P.3d 1013 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 4× “5 Plaintiff sued, asserting claims for breach of mandatory duty (Gov. Code, § 815.6), negligence, and negligence per se.”
Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, 993 P.2d 983 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 6× “Paul Haggis sued the City of Los Angeles (the City) on four causes of action for breach of mandatory duties (Gov. Code, § 815.6) arising out of the City's failure to follow certain directives in its own municipal code regarding development of property in landslide zones.”
Shelton v. City of Westminster, 138 Cal. App. 3d 610 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 10× “*614 DISCUSSION I (1a) The first cause of action alleges a failure to discharge a mandatory duty required by Penal Code section 11114 and seeks to impose liability pursuant to Government Code section 815.6. Government Code section 815.”
Guzman v. Cnty. of Monterey, 209 P.3d 89 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 3× “3 As discussed in greater detail below, plaintiffs’ third cause of action against the County alleged that under these “enactments” (Gov. Code, § 815.6), the County had a mandatory duty to (1) review Pinch’s water quality monitoring reports and establish a system to assure that…”
Shamsian v. Dep't of Conservation, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1171 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “With respect to a public entity such as the department, Government Code section 815.6 allows an exception to governmental immunity and creates a private right of action where there is a mandatory duty to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury.”
AE Ex Rel. Hernandez v. Cnty. of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2012). “AE asserted two bases for the County’s liability: (1) direct liability for breach of a mandatory duty, pursuant to California Government Code § 815.6; and (2) derivative liability for the negligent acts or omissions of County employees, pursuant to California Government Code §…”
Sullivan v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 527 P.2d 865 (Cal. 1974). · cites it 4× “The county's failure to release plaintiff after dismissal of all charges against him, as mandated by Penal Code section 1384, renders it directly liable under Government Code section 815.6. Government Code section 815.”
Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008). “Even assuming, without deciding, that § 1240 is sufficient to create an actionable duty under California law, see Cal. Govt.Code § 815.6; Haggis v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.”
Cerna v. City of Oakland, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 168 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs rely on Vehicle Code section 21368 in two respects. First, plaintiffs claim the City was under a mandatory duty to comply with the Vehicle Code as an enactment designed to protect against the injuries plaintiffs suffered.”
Show all 246 citing cases →
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.