*1 probationary teachers who employed were then in the school before discharge authorized to her. If the board perform to failed duty, wrongfully the teacher was dis- charged and she is entitled be reinstated. Section 5.711 provides that permanent employee “no . . . be dismissed a probationary while employee employed is retained or permanent render a service employee which such is certifi- competent cated apparent to render”. capability perform particular of a teacher to service determined, school can best be decided, and should be presumed board of members trustees, whose must special knowledge have of the needs of school. Section impose Otherwise, 5.711 seems to the board. the burden permanent would be cast teacher who had wrongfully discharged, prove affirmatively competent perform probationary the duties employed school, teacher who before she would be entitled to reinstated. We think the burden prove incompetency lawfully before she board discharged pursuant 5.711, under to section the circumstances court, therefore, properly this case. trial objections appellants’ prove petitioner’s to the offer to perform incompetency engaged pro- in by the service bationary teachers. is affirmed. Steel, J., pro
Pullen, J., tem., concurred. Appellate District, No. 11927. Second Division Two.November CLAMPETT, etc., al., MARIE et Minor, Appellants, v. (a Corpora- THE SHOPPING BAG MARKETS INC. tion) et *2 Appellants. John
H. E. Gleason and F. Poole for Ruppé Respondents. E. Paul T. Donald Howe for WOOD, J. This was commenced to recover dam- ages slipped suffered Marie when she passageway public operated fell a in market a defendants. The trial court directed a verdict for defend- resulting judgment plaintiffs prosecute and from the ants appeal. this governing matter rule trial courts of directed may established. The court a is well direct
verdicts conflicting only when, disregarding evidence and verdict legally all the value to which it is plaintiff’s evidence giving legitimate inference indulging every which entitled, substantiality therefrom, no evidence of sufficient drawn plaintiff, given, in favor of support verdict Co., (Mairo v. Yellow Cab found.
66].) Considering light rule, 17, the record August discloses on the afternoon Clampett, thirteen and one-half age, entered Shopping market known Bag as city Angeles. mother, of Los Under directions from and as years, she had been accustomed to several she do was carrying two milk bottles returned market. The weather passed was clear and entered. she She right down main angle aisle and turn the left made steps along and took two two and one-half place feet wide. As she was about to “mud, counter fell into injuries. resulting slime”, in her Marie testified recently washed; the cement floor the market had slowly; puddle. walked did not observe grew very way outside, dark from the it was and it was light. Well, —it was dark in there. It was not I didn’t quite it, I pay any observe sir. didn’t attention, because just going my down, just bottles to set I went happened them quick set down time that didn’t—I noticing *3 don’t remember it puddle, the but I know got up was there because when I all wet and the floor immediately was wet there.” Another Marie behind Marie fell pool mud, testified that “where there was a of slime ... said and that the market was wet slimy went but not when we the other market, just slipped”. where keep was the of defendants premises
It their passageways the therein a safe and condition use injury ordinary properly care to avoid to those entering the (Tuttle premises on business. 8 Crawford, v. (2d) Cal. 126 1128].) (2d) The trial Pac. court was of the [63 guilty contributory negligence Marie was of as a matter plaintiff question of whether in an like action contributory negligence of present is ordinarily the is jury. determination the question the of The quantum question is a which the law exacts of care relative to the particular Considering each case. facts of that building the exterior of the went from to a narrow immediately upon dark and almost turning upon the main aisle from of mud
413 counter, placing the filth while act of taking proper in it cannot be held that the court’s (Brown jury. the matter from the consideration of the v. 661]; Inc., App. 108 483 Pac. Holzwasser Cal. Mehollin [291 (2d) 855]; (2d) 11 53 Pac. v. Cal. Ysuchiyama, Stod [77 (2d) 166 App. Inc., 27 Cal. dard v. Public Roberts Market App. (2d) ; Hardy, Pac. Williamson v. [80 519] 646]; Pac. Crawford, supra.) Tuttle v. [190 Quinn rely contained v. Defendants a statement (2d) Pac. Assn., (2d) Park 3 Cal. [46 Recreation showing clear of 144], to effect that in the absence the of reviewing of will interfere with abuse courts discretion submitting refusing to submit rulings the trial courts in or juries question the the whether age years fourteen was such of children of the prevent recovery their them. as to should be jury the alleged questions concerning the con determine of fact tributory the negligence of a child of in the case of child be denied Quinn scope years. The statement v. of thirteen Assn., narrowed later has been supra, Park Recreation 723, 728 (2d) 10 Cal. Raggio Mallory, v. quotes approval with state 660], in (2d) which the Contributory Negligence to effect from ment Beach exceedingly young usually left child unless the required measure and care to determine case. in the actual circumstances particular presented in the us we case before would Under the compelled that, hold even Marie had negligence issue of her age, the adult jury. submitted to have been should is reversed. McComb, J., concurred. *4 J., Concurring. I concurin
CRAIL, but opinion. says, should be to deter- concerning fact questions contributory- mine a child and be negligence denied in the case of the thirteen years.” we do not like this sentence. looks holding thought might cited although But, no, import case, of the real of the court. effect, that poorly disclosed, is, all the law is the same capable of younger likely less it is to be the child the 998.) committing negligence. (45 C. J. held was young It was not because was the child law, a matter of but spite permitted young that the fact that she committing negligence and ruling capable that she was matter of contributory negligence as a indeed guilty District, November Appellate No. First Division Two. 10908. PACIFIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. INDUS-
TRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, MILDRED L.V. HANCOCK et