CIV § 1929

Repair damage from own lack of ordinary care (CIV § 1929)

California Civil Code § 1929 requires the hirer to repair all deteriorations or injuries from their own want of ordinary care.

Official text CIV § 1929 — California

The hirer of a thing must repair all deteriorations or injuries thereto occasioned by his want of ordinary care.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1929 is one line and it decides a large share of move-out arguments: the hirer of a thing must repair all deteriorations or injuries thereto occasioned by his want of ordinary care. The standard is want of ordinary care, not perfection and not use. Deterioration that comes from living somewhere normally is not caused by a want of ordinary care, which is the doctrinal root of the phrase "ordinary wear and tear" that § 1950.5(e)(2) then uses to bar deposit deductions.

The section applies to hiring generally, not only to housing, so it governs a rented car, a hired machine or a borrowed piece of equipment as readily as a flat. In the residential setting it does three jobs. It defines what the tenant owes for. It is cross-referenced by § 1941, which excludes from the landlord's repair duty the deteriorations mentioned in this section. And it is cross-referenced by § 1942(c) and § 1942.4(a)(4), which remove the tenant's repair-and-deduct remedy and the bar on collecting rent where the condition arose from a violation of this section.

So the practical question in a deposit or repair dispute is almost never "is there damage" but "did want of ordinary care cause it". A carpet worn thin along a hallway after four years, a wall marked where furniture stood, a tap washer that failed: these are the effects of time and use. A cracked worktop, a burn, a cat-shredded doorframe, a bathroom left to flood: these are the section's territory. Where a particular item sits is a factual judgement about age, use and evidence, and is worth putting to a lawyer or a tenant service with photographs in hand.

When it applies

A move-out statement charging you for scratches, burns or holes
A landlord treating four years of ordinary use as damage
Damage done by a guest, a child or a pet during the tenancy
A rented car or piece of equipment returned with a dent
A flood caused by leaving a tap running or a hose disconnected
You want to know why "wear and tear" is not defined anywhere in the deposit section

What this section does not say

It does not make the tenant an insurer. The trigger is want of ordinary care; damage from an accident nobody could reasonably have prevented, or from a defect in the property itself, is outside the sentence.
It does not authorise a deduction from the deposit. What may be taken from a residential security deposit is governed by § 1950.5, which separately bars charging for ordinary wear and tear.
It does not define ordinary wear and tear. It defines the opposite — the tenant's liability — and the boundary is left to be argued on the facts.
It does not cover deterioration the landlord should have repaired. Where a defect falls under § 1941 the duty is the landlord's, and this section does not shift it because the tenant lived with it.
It is not limited to tenancies. "Hirer of a thing" covers rented goods and vehicles as well as rented homes.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

At the end of a four-year tenancy the landlord's statement charges the tenant for a worn hallway carpet and for a chip out of the kitchen worktop where something heavy was dropped.

How the wording applies

Section 1929 makes the tenant liable for deterioration caused by their want of ordinary care, which is the source of the wear-and-tear line the deposit rules use without defining. The two items fall on different sides of it: four years of walking on a hallway carpet is ordinary use, while a chip from a dropped object is damage. What may actually be deducted is then governed by section 1950.5, including apportionment for the age of the carpet.

How the parties settled it

The tenant pays the repair cost of the worktop chip and nothing for the carpet, and the landlord releases the balance of the deposit within a week.

Illustrative example

A tenant leaves a garden hose running into a paddling pool and goes out for the afternoon. Water gets under the back door and into the floor of the flat.

How the wording applies

The trigger is want of ordinary care, and leaving a running hose unattended for hours is squarely within it. The fact that would change the answer is a defect in the property itself: if the water only entered because an outside drain the landlord was responsible for was blocked, the duty under section 1941 pulls in the other direction.

How the parties settled it

The tenant pays the drying and flooring cost up to an agreed cap, the landlord clears and maintains the outside drain, and the deposit is left untouched.

Related sections

CIV § 1950.5 Security deposit capped at one month's rent - CIV § 1950.5 CIV § 1941 Landlords Must Keep Dwellings Fit to Live In: CIV § 1941 CIV § 1941.2 Substantial Tenant Breach Cancels Repairs: CIV § 1941.2 CIV § 1942 Deduct Up to One Month's Rent or Vacate: CIV § 1942

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1929 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages