Court Opinion

ID: 9735256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:06:59.518904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.348292
License: Public Domain

PIERCE, P. J.
I concur in the conclusion and in all of the reasons therefor as expressed in Justice Van Dyke’s opinion, except that I do not agree that the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding ordinance prescribing the minimum height for meters and the effect of its violation. The portions of the record pertinent to this question have been fairly stated in the foregoing opinion.
The mockup, scale of which was shown thereon, showed the door to be of standard 6-£oot 6-ineh height, and when opened and in juxtaposition to the meter panel (also included in the mockup), the meter is demonstrated to be well below 6 feet. Although not formally introduced in evidence, the mockup with its scale was before the jury, failure to put it formally in evidence was clearly an oversight, questions were framed and answers given upon the assumption that the mockup was accurate and that the height of the meter was below six feet; no contention otherwise ivas made. Nor were any objections made to the use of the mockup nor to questions asked which effectually assumed it to be a part of the evidence in the case. I would hold that appellant is estopped to complain of the omission on this appeal (in fact would have been estopped to complain of the instruction ex post facto in the trial court), which holding I conceive to be a proper application of the rule that “where the existence of certain facts is assumed in the trial court and the trial proceeds, without objection, on that assumption, and the case is decided in reliance thereon, neither party will be heard in the court of review to question there, for the first time, the existence of the facts, and especially not where the alleged omissions might have been supplied if called to the attention of the trial court.” (Brown v. Gurney, 201 U.S. 184, 190 [26 S.Ct. 509, 50 L.Ed. 717, 720-721]; see also 5 Am.Jur.2d, § 710, pp. 155-156, and cases cited.)
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 18, 1963, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 18, 1963.