Varcoe v. Lee
181 P. 223, 1919 Cal. LEXIS 490, 180 Cal. 338 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may take judicial notice of a fact and instruct the jury accordingly, provided the fact is a matter of common and general knowledge within its jurisdiction and is certain and indisputable.
Facts:
- The defendant, Nichols, while employed as a chauffeur for the defendant, Lee, drove Lee's automobile south on Mission Street in San Francisco.
- As Nichols' vehicle approached the intersection with Twenty-first Street, the plaintiff's child attempted to cross Mission Street.
- There was testimony that the child waited for northbound wagons and a street-car to pass before she started to run across the street.
- The automobile driven by Nichols struck and killed the child.
- Witness testimony about the car's speed was conflicting, with some stating it was traveling between thirty and forty miles per hour.
- The accident occurred on a section of Mission Street that contained various commercial establishments, including a drugstore, a barbershop, a haberdashery, and a saloon.
Procedural Posture:
- The child's father sued the driver, Nichols, and the car's owner, Lee, in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco, a trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for five thousand dollars.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit prejudicial error by instructing a jury that a specific, well-known urban street is a 'business district' as a matter of law, thereby taking judicial notice of the fact, instead of submitting the question of the street's character to the jury for determination?
Opinions:
Majority - Olney, J.
No. A trial court does not err by instructing the jury on a fact that is a matter of common knowledge and beyond dispute within its jurisdiction. The principle of judicial notice serves as a 'judicial short-cut,' obviating the need for formal evidence when none is truly necessary. The character of Mission Street as a major business thoroughfare is a matter of common, everyday knowledge for residents of San Francisco, including the judge and jury. If this indisputable fact had been left to the jury and they had found otherwise, the court would have been obligated to set aside the verdict. Therefore, instructing the jury that the location was a 'business district' under the state's Motor Vehicle Act was proper because the fact was both certain and a matter of common notoriety within the court's jurisdiction.
Concurring - Angellotti, C. J.
No. While concurring in the judgment, the instruction can be upheld on the narrower ground that the character of the location as a 'business district' was never a contested issue at trial and was practically conceded by all parties. The evidence all pointed to this conclusion, and the defendants raised no objection to this characterization until filing their reply brief on appeal. Upholding the instruction on the basis of the parties' implicit agreement during the trial avoids the need to potentially extend the doctrine of judicial notice to an unwarranted extent.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the modern application of judicial notice for adjudicative facts, particularly those of a geographic or demographic nature that are commonly known within a court's jurisdiction. The majority's reasoning empowers judges to promote judicial efficiency by removing indisputable factual questions from the jury's purview, preventing absurd verdicts. The concurrence, however, highlights the tension in this doctrine, cautioning against its overextension and suggesting that such issues are better resolved by looking at whether a fact was actually disputed by the parties at trial. This decision provides a foundational test for when a fact is so well-known and certain that formal proof is unnecessary.
