Wise v. City of Los Angeles

9 Cal.App.2d 364 (1935) LILLIAN WISE, Respondent,

v.

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (a Municipal Corporation), Appellant.

Civ. No. 10454. California Court of Appeals. Second Appellate District, Division Two.

October 7, 1935. Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Frederick von Schrader, Assistant City Attorney, and Thatcher J. Kemp and Leon T. David, Deputies City Attorney, for Appellant.

C. E. Hollopeter and Kent C. Rogers for Respondent.

McComb, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff found to have resulted from a hole, six inches square and six inches deep, dug and left by defendant's employees in one of its public streets for a period of four or five days. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on each material allegation [366] in the complaint and assessed damages in the sum of $1,035.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on three propositions:

First. The evidence is insufficient to support the findings of fact.

Second. The defendant municipality is not liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition of one of its streets in the absence of actual knowledge or actual notice of such dangerous or defective condition.

Third. The existence of a defective condition in a public street for the period of four or five days does not as a matter of law constitute constructive notice to the municipality and a reasonable time to remedy the condition under the Public Liability Act of 1923, Statutes of 1923, page 675, Act 5619, Deering's General Laws, volume II, page 3052.

[1] As to defendant's first proposition, we have examined the evidence and are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the trial court may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain each and every material finding of fact in favor of plaintiff. We therefore refrain from further discussion of the evidence. (Leavens v. Pinkham & McKevitt, 164 Cal. 242, 245 [128 P. 399]; Koeberle v. Hotchkiss, 8 Cal.App.2d 634 [48 PaCal.2d 104].)