Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WIRES v. LITLE.
The petition for hearing in this court after decision by the District Court of Appeal of the Second Appellate District, Division Two, is denied. However, such denial is not to be taken as indicating approval by this court of the discussion concerning matters of common knowledge which, it is said, a jury may properly consider in an action for malpractice.
I concur in the general order by which a hearing of the cause by this court is denied; but I am not in accord with that part of the order which is to the effect that the denial of the petition for hearing in this court ‘is not to be taken as indicating approval by this court of the discussion concerning matters of common knowledge’, etc.
The language which occurs in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal to which the order has reference is as follows (80 P.2d page 1012): ‘It might be well argued that it is a matter of common knowledge that a needle accidentally embedded in the finger of a seamstress might cause infection if not promptly extracted; that a clear X-ray picture would be of assistance to the surgeon; and that if an indistinct picture be secured from a dental office an effort should be made to secure a clear picture from those equipped with apparatus for that purpose.’ (Emphasis added.)
It is obvious that an order of denial of hearing which contains express language that ‘such denial is not to be taken as indicating approval by this court’ of specified discussion which appears in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, is the equivalent, and is but another way of stating, that the criticized portion of the opinion is disapproved.
At the outset, it may be observed that it is questionable whether this court is constitutionally empowered or authorized as an incident to the instant proceeding, either specifically to approve or to ‘disapprove’ of any declaration of law that has been made by the District Court of Appeal.
Of course, it must be conceded that the constitutional provisions are the source of power of the Supreme Court. Apparently sections 4 and 4c of article 6 of the Constitution contain the only provisions that have a bearing upon such assumed authority. In the former section, it is provided that ‘the said court shall * * * have appellate jurisdiction in all cases, matters and proceedings pending before a district court of appeal, which shall be ordered by the supreme court to be transferred to itself for hearing and decision, as hereinafter provided’; and the pertinent provision of the latter section is that ‘the Supreme Court shall have power * * * to order any cause pending before a district court of appeal to be heard and determined by the supreme court’. (Emphasis added.)
With respect to the instant inquiry, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is thus established, and is as fixed as is the jurisdiction of any other court. The constitutional provisions in that regard contemplate only that either a hearing of a cause shall be granted, or that it shall be denied. No middle course is available. If a hearing be granted, manifestly the cause is then before the court for determination; and in that event such a decision and opinion may be rendered as may accord with the views of a majority of the members of the court. But should the petition for a hearing be denied, by no constitutional provision is it implied or even suggested that the court possesses any power other than to make its unqualified order to that effect. In that regard, neither direct nor implied authority is conferred upon the Supreme Court either to modify an opinion theretofore rendered by a District Court of Appeal, or to exercise any sort of supervisory control with reference thereto. It is obvious that without and in the absence of a regular hearing of a cause, if the Supreme Court has authority to modify such a decision or opinion in any particular, it should follow that the court may so modify the decision or the opinion as to render it of no effect; in other words, it might ‘modify’ an opinion of the District Court of Appeal out of existence; and at the same time, in the place of such ‘modified’ opinion, either expressly or impliedly, substitute an opinion and decision which might be to the same effect as that theretofore rendered by the District Court of Appeal, or, at its pleasure or option, expressly reach an opposite conclusion, accompanied by an appropriate opinion—all without any hearing having been granted.
But even assuming the existence of the constitutional power in this court which herein has been exercised, it is not clear that the ‘discussion’ to which the order herein has made reference, and regarding which ‘approval by this court’ is withheld, does not constitute a fair and correct expression of the law in the matter to which it relates.
Directing attention to the opening words of the ‘discussion’ which apply to each of the several statements thereafter following, it will be noted, not that a positive declaration is made with reference thereto, but only that ‘it might be well argued that it is a matter of common knowledge’, etc. Otherwise stated, the opinion does not purport to declare that either in fact or in law it is a matter of common knowledge, but only that whether such conditions exist may be debatable. In that light, I fail to discern any ground for ‘disapproval’ by this court. Although not admitted, even should it be conceded that by the criticized language of the District Court of Appeal, an impression was sought to be conveyed that the specified statements actually constituted and were ‘matters of common knowledge’, again I must confess my inability to detect any error therein. Is it not a fact that practically every one knows that either a needle or any other foreign substance which may become ‘embedded (either) in the finger’, or in any other part of the body ‘might (may) cause infection if not promptly extracted’? And in these more advanced days, is there any responsible person who does not know that in treating a patient who has been so unfortunate as to have a broken needle embedded in a finger joint, ‘a clear X-ray picture (of such joint) would be of assistance to the surgeon’? Furthermore, would not common sense indicate that if in the first instance a poor or ‘indistinct picture be secured’, either from a dental office or from any other source, ‘an effort should be made to secure a clear picture from those equipped with apparatus for that purpose’? A denial of the existence of such knowledge on the part of the average layman amounts to a refusal to accredit to him any observation whatsoever relating to the most common and ordinary conditions that surround transactions and happenings of our daily life. (Emphasis added.)
Nor in my judgment may it properly be declared that either of such assumed statements regarding that which may constitute ‘judicial notice’ was erroneous. In 23 C.J., pages 58, 59, 61, it is declared that ‘The term ‘judicial notice’ means no more than that the court will bring to its aid and consider, without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all well-informed persons. * * * Courts may properly take judicial notice of facts that may be regarded as forming part of the common knowledge of every person of ordinary understanding and intelligence.' And as affecting a situation such as here is in question, in 15 Ruling Case Law, pages 1101 and 1130 (where many judicial illustrations are cited) it is respectively stated that ‘Courts will take judicial notice of those facts relating to human life, health, habits and acts known to men of ordinary understanding * * *; the general rule is that it is the duty of a court to take judicial cognizance of all matters affecting the public health which are of certainty to general or scientific knowledge. * * *’ Within cited cases where it has been held that the court may ‘take judicial notice’ of facts which may include and affect the physical condition of persons, the following several rulings appear: The size of an ordinary man is a matter of common knowledge, which extends not only to height and thickness of the body as a whole, but also to the measurement of the various parts; a man could not accidentally fall through a hole of a certain size; the destruction of the sight of one eye impairs the general power of vision; the instinct of self-preservation will be judicially noticed; also the effect of fright or exposure on the nervous system; the habits and qualities of the more common animals; certain strains and breeds of animals of the same species are more valuable than others; certain objects or events are or are not such as to frighten horses of ordinary gentleness; Texas cattle have some contagious or infectious disease, communicable to native cattle outside that state; certain animals are the natural enemies of others; epilepsy tends to weaken mental force, and often descends from parent to child, or entails upon the offspring of the sufferer some other grave form of nervous malady; man's susceptibility to certain diseases; means or method by which disease spreads from one victim to another; diseases of the skin may be spread in barbershops; reclamation of swamp and overflowed lands may concern the public health; considerations of public health necessitates that streets be kept clean of refuse; hogs kept within thickly populated cities tend to create a condition hazardous to the public health; a high, rank growth of weeds in a thickly populated district tends to injuriously affect the health of the inhabitants; the manufacture of wearing apparel in unsanitary and overcrowded working quarters may promote or spread disease; and that long hours in certain employments are injurious to health.
As a conclusion, it is clear to my mind that that part of the order to which reference hereinbefore has been had, is erroneous.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 11793.
Decided: August 22, 1938
Court: Supreme Court of California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)