Wise

McComb, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff found to have resulted from a hole, six inches square and six inches deep, dug and left by defendant's employees in one of its public streets for a period of four or five days. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on each material allegation in the complaint and assessed damages in the sum of $1,035.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on three propositions:

First. The evidence is insufficient to support the findings of fact.

Second. The defendant municipality is not liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition of one of its streets in the absence of actual knowledge or actual notice of such dangerous or defective condition.

Third. The existence of a defective condition in a public street for the period of four or five days does not as a matter of law constitute constructive notice to the municipality and a reasonable time to remedy the condition under the Public Liability Act of 1923, Statutes of 1923, page 675, Act 5619, Deering's General Laws, volume II, page 3052.

[1] As…

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff found to have resulted from a hole, six inches square and six inches deep, dug and left by defendant’s employees in one of its public streets for a period of four or five days. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff on each material allega-5. *366 tion in the complaint and assessed damages in the sum of $1,035.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on three propositions:

As to defendant’s first proposition, we have examined the evidence and are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the trial court may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain each and every material finding of fact in favor of plaintiff. We therefore refrain from further discussion of the evidence. (Leavens v. Pinkham & McKevitt, 164 Cal. 242, 245 [ 128 Pac. 399 ]; Koeberle v. Hotchkiss, 8 Cal. App. (2d) 634 [ 48 Pac. (2d) 104 ].)

Turning to defendant’s second proposition, the defendant municipality is liable for damages, resulting from a defective condition existing in one of its streets, in…

Defendant’s petition for a rehearing places great reliance upon the decision in Watson v. City of Alameda, 219 Cal. 331 [ 26 Pac. (2d) 286 ], and it is claimed the rule therein annonced is contrary to the law as stated in the last paragraph of our opinion.

It is to be noted that the judgment in the instant ease would be affirmed for the other reasons stated in the decision, even though the last paragraph were entirely eliminated from the opinion. The law as we have stated it is not contrary to the decision in Watson v. City of Alameda, supra, the cases being clearly distinguishable on several grounds.

First: In Watson v. City of Alameda, supra, an employee of defendant painted a line in the street. This act was not inherently wrong or dangerous, while the digging of a hole in a public highway, as in the instant case, is obviously inherently dangerous. Mr. Justice Langdon recognizes this distinction in the case of Watson v. City of Alameda, supra, wherein he says at page 333:

In Kaufman v. Tomich, supra, a case wherein the municipality directed an independent contractor to dig a ditch which the court found was inherently dangerous, Mr. Chief *368 Justice Waste in holding…