Opinion

Varcoe v. Lee

  • 180 Cal. 338
  • 181 P. 223
  • 1919 Cal. LEXIS 490
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
May 8, 1919
Status
Published
Author
Angellotti
On the bench
Olney, Angellotti
Cited by
94 cases

The opinion

ANGELLOTTI, C. J.,

Concurring.I concur in the judgment, and also in the opinion except upon the question of judicial notice, a determination of which question appears to be considered by the majority opinion as essential to a conclusion that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that Mission Street at Twenty-first Street was a “business district” within the meaning of the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act limiting speed in such a district to not exceeding fifteen miles an hour. I am not satisfied that the opinion does not carry the doctrine of judicial notice to an unwarranted extent. It seems to me, after a careful consideration of the record, that the instruction referred to may fairly be upheld upon the theory that there was no question in the trial court as to the place of the accident being within such a district and that this was something practically conceded on all hands. Certainly every scrap of evidence tending to throw any light whatever on the matter so tended to show, and the

*348

trial court apparently took the matter as granted, plaint whatever was made as to these instructions closing brief of appellants was filed in this court, think they should now be held erroneous. No eomuntil the I do not

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.