Opinion ID: 1476714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: The Questions Presented Sufficient Facts in Evidence

Text: The appellants' first two attacks upon these hypothetical questions may be considered together. They are (1) that the question addressed to Dr. Wiley did not contain sufficient facts to afford ground for a reasonable conclusion or opinion, and (2) that the question asked of Mason and Capps assumed facts not in evidence. From the facts already stated, supplemented by the reasonable inferences flowing therefrom and by the presumptions of regularity that, as we have seen, are firmly recognized in the law, it is clear that the hypothetical questions referred to were not objectionable. We need not labor the factual aspects further. Moreover, it should be remembered that the rule requiring a factual basis for a hypothetical question is not applied with iron rigidity. In Permanente Metals Corporation v. Pista, 9 Cir., 154 F.2d 568, 569, we said: Moreover, it has been held in California, as elsewhere, that where a witness answers a hypothetical question not founded on all the facts of the case, the defect goes not to the competency of the evidence but merely affects its weight. And in the earlier case of Travelers Ins. Co. v. Drake, 9 Cir., 89 F.2d 47, 50, this court used the following language regarding the factual latitude that might be allowed: The question may be framed upon any theory of the interrogator, which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence; any assumptions may be indulged on any fact within the evidence, upon which opinion is desired by the interrogator; and facts not deemed material may be omitted. [Many cases cited.] The truth of facts assumed by the hypothetical question as within the probable range of the evidence, as a basis to support the hypothetical question, is a question of fact for the determination of the jury to find with the other submitted facts upon a fair submission of the issue, and it must determine whether the basis upon which the hypothetical question rests has been established. [Authorities cited.] When the question assumes a state of facts which the evidence directly, fairly and reasonably tends to establish, and does not transcend the range of the evidence, it is not objectionable. [Cases cited.] [5]