Court Opinion

ID: 9727259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:28:21.087592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:35.662470
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
In its petition for rehearing Davey Tree Surgery Co. directs attention to the fact we failed to rule upon its contention the trial court erred in denying its motion to strike the testimony of a witness named O’Hanrahan respecting the position of the wires above the accident tree. The basis for the motion was a claimed lack of foundation respecting the time and place when and where the witness made the observation about which he testified. No authority is cited in support of its position.  The issue is one of relevancy which is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. (Zollars v. Barber, 140 Cal.App.2d 502, 509 [295 P.2d 561]; Spolter v. Four-Wheel Brake Service Co., 99 Cal.App.2d 690, 699 [222 P.2d 307].)  There is evidence supporting a conclusion the observation was made at a time and place relevant to the time and place of the accident even though there is evidence to the contrary. Denial of the motion to strike was not an abuse of discretion.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 10, 1970. McComb, J., did not participate therein.