## Facts

- Lee owned an automobile driven by his chauffeur, Nichols, on Mission Street in San Francisco near Twenty-first Street.
- Varcoe’s young child attempted to cross Mission Street and was struck and killed by the automobile.
- Varcoe sued for wrongful death, alleging negligent operation based largely on excessive and unlawful speed.
- Evidence on the vehicle’s speed conflicted: some testimony suggested a short stopping distance consistent with a low speed; other testimony placed the speed at roughly 30–40 miles per hour.
- A statute limited speed to 15 miles per hour in a “business district.”
- The trial court instructed that exceeding 15 miles per hour in a business district would constitute negligence and treated the accident location as a business district without requiring proof.
- The jury returned a verdict for Varcoe for $5,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could take judicial notice that the relevant portion of Mission Street was a “business district” for purposes of applying the 15-mph statutory limit.
2. Whether the evidence compelled a finding that defendants were not negligent as to speed.
3. Whether the child’s conduct established contributory negligence as a matter of law.
4. Whether the $5,000 damages award was excessive as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The judgment was affirmed.
- The trial court properly took judicial notice that the accident location on Mission Street was a business district and could instruct the jury accordingly.
- Conflicting evidence on speed created a jury question, and the verdict would not be disturbed.
- Contributory negligence by the child was not established as a matter of law and was properly left to the jury.
- The damages award was not so large as to indicate passion, prejudice, or corruption, and was not excessive as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A court may judicially notice adjudicative facts that are (1) of common and general knowledge, (2) established and authoritatively settled rather than doubtful, and (3) within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
- Judicial notice should be used cautiously; if there is a reasonable question whether a fact is common knowledge or certain and indisputable, proof should be required.
- Where evidence on negligence (including speed) is conflicting, the issue is for the jury, and an appellate court will not reweigh credibility to overturn the verdict.
- Claims of excessive damages require a showing that the award reflects passion, prejudice, or corruption, not merely that it is large.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a wrongful-death verdict and approved judicial notice that a well-known city street area was a business district, applying the statutory speed limit without requiring proof, while leaving disputed negligence, contributory negligence, and damages questions to the jury.


Varcoe v. Lee, 180 Cal. 338, 181 P. 223 (Cal. 1919)