Peredia

*160 *683 This appeal addresses the circumstances under which a safety consultant retained by a California employer owes a duty of care to the employer's workers. California recognizes the common law theory of negligent undertaking, which is described in section 324A of the Restatement Second of Torts (section 324A). Our Supreme Court set forth the five elements of a negligent undertaking cause of action in *684 Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 479 , 957 P.2d 1313 ( Artiglio ), three of which are related to the duty of care. Our Supreme Court has not applied these elements to a safety consultant.

Here, the trial court granted summary judgment to the safety consultant on the ground the consultant owed no duty of care to the employees because the consultant's allegedly negligent omissions were not affirmative misfeasance and, therefore, were not acts "wrongful in their nature" for purposes of Civil Code section 2343. We interpret the phrase "wrongful in their nature" as encompassing conduct that is tortious-that is, a civil wrong. Consequently, if plaintiffs are able to prove all of the elements of their negligent undertaking cause of action, they…