California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from McNeill v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., 137 Cal.App.2d 5, 289 P.2d 595 (Cal. App. 1955):
We will treat first of the contention of the corporation that the ordinance was inadmissible in proof of plaintiffs' cause of action against it. This contention cannot be sustained. Appellant argues that the ordinance had not been pleaded and that it had objected to its introduction upon that basis; that the court overruled the objection, expressing the opinion that it appeared to the court it was not necessary [137 Cal.App.2d 9] to plead the ordinance because it was admissible under the general issue of negligence raised by the pleading. In so ruling the court was correct. We quote the following from Jackson v. Hardy, 70 Cal.App.2d 6, 12, 160 P.2d 161, 164:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.