Court Opinion

ID: 9793063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:41:42.81622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:12.721486
License: Public Domain

SHENK, J., Dissenting.
The question of fact with reference to the negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff were well within the province of the jury to determine in this ease. They were both decided in favor of the plaintiff. Whether it was error to give an instruction based on the presumption provided for in subdivision 4 of section 1963 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if so whether it was reversible error under the doctrine of Mar Shee v. Maryland Assurance Corp., 190 Cal. 1 [210 *223P. 269], were adequately considered by the District Court of Appeal of the Second District, Division 1, in an opinion written by Justice Lillie (324 P.2d 301). The presumption is “that a person takes ordinary care of his own concerns.” The Mar Shee case places certain limitations, which need not here be discussed, on the application of that presumption. The District Court of Appeal held that, because of the incomplete and uncertain testimony of the 83-year-old plaintiff taken some four years after the accident, the limitations of the Mar Shee case did not apply. It was also held that, considering the evidence and the instructions as a whole, there was no reversible error. With this I agree, and adopt the opinion of the District Court of Appeal as what I believe to be a just and proper disposition of the appeal. I would affirm the judgment.