Yik Hon v. Spring Valley Water Works

Citations

• 65 Cal. 619
• 4 P. 666
• 1884 Cal. LEXIS 653

Syllabus

<p>OojmtrBtJTOEr Negligence—Pleading—Complaint.—In an action to recdamages for negligence, the absence of contributory negligence need not be averred in the complaint.</p> <p>Id.—Damages by Wateb.— In an action against a water company for injuries caused by the negligence of its employees in repairing its water pipes, by which water was thrown upon the roof of plaintiff’s building, and goods therein damaged, it is not contributory negligence that a scuttle in the roof of the building had been left open.</p> <p>Evidence—Yabiance. — Where it is alleged in the complaint that goods damaged by water through the negligence of a water company were in the building of the plaintiff, proof that some of them were on the roof of the building is not a material variance.</p> <p>Id. — Objection to Evidence—Appeal.—Where no objection is made at the trial to the admission of evidence on the ground of variance between the averments of the complaint and the evidence offered, the point cannot be taken on appeal.</p>