Cal. Codes » Labor Code / DIVISION 3. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS / CHAPTER 2. Employer and Employee / ARTICLE 3. Obligations of Employee
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 2854 (2026)

Obligations of Employee

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

One who, for a good consideration, agrees to serve another, shall perform the service, and shall use ordinary care and diligence therein, so long as he is thus employed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1969–2019 · leading case: Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 765 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 765 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 2× “" (Lab. Code, § 2854.) It is not clear whether the duty to communicate relevant information is subsumed under the statutory duty of ordinary care, or is a separate duty not codified by the 1872 Legislature.”
Gomez v. J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 3d 986 (E.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “, “the doctrine *994 of avoidable consequences,” “the doctrine of unclean hands,” “the doctrine of waiver,” “the doctrine of estoppel,” or based on violation of “California Labor Code §§ 2854, 2856, 2857, 2858, and/or 2859.”
Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 467 (N.D. Cal. 1985). · cites it 2× “Defendants removed the action to this court and filed a counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff violated Cal.Lab.Code §§ 2854, 2856-59, and 2865, and breached duties of loyalty and good faith and fair dealing.”
Erhart v. Bofi Holding, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2019). “" Cal. Lab. Code § 2854 ; see also id. § 2859 ("An employee is always bound to use such skill as he possesses, so far as the same is required, for the service specified.”
Dahl-Beck Elec. Co. v. Rogge, 275 Cal. App. 2d 893 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969). “2d 773, 780 ) ; and in a case of an employee for a consideration, he is guilty of a “ culpable degree of negligence” when he fails to use ordinary care (italics added; Lab. Code, § 2854), consistent with the degree of skill required and to be used as provided in Labor Code…”
Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1988). “For example, regarding Cal. Labor Code § 2854 (West 1971), which requires an employee to “use ordinary care and dil *1162 igence,” the court found that “[defendant nowhere alleges that plaintiff was anything but a useful and diligent employee.”
Stiefel v. McKee, 1 Cal. App. 3d 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969). “Paragraph IV alleges: “As real estate licensees, defendants and each of them were required to exercise in connection with the events hereafter described such skill, care and diligence as is imposed by California Labor Code Sections 2854, 2859, the Real Estate Law as set forth in…”
Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 827 F.2d 450 (9th Cir. 1987). “For example, regarding Cal. Labor Code § 2854 (West 1971), which requires an employee to “use ordinary care and diligence,” the court found that “[djefendant nowhere alleges that plaintiff was anything but a useful and diligent employee.”
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.