A hearing was granted in this case after decision by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District. Upon further consideration we adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Marks as part of the opinion of this court. It reads as follows:

“Any liability of the Company must arise under the order of the Railroad Commission requiring it to maintain the new level portion of the viaduct at its own cost and expense. This obligation was placed upon it by the order which the Supreme Court has held the Railroad Commission had the power and authority to make. (City of San Ber nardino v. Railroad Commission, supra.) While the word ‘maintain’ is used in the formal portion of the order, it is clear from what precedes that it was intended that this maintenance should include keeping the viaduct in a proper state of repair. The supreme court of Kansas in a case construing a contract requiring an electric service company to maintain a transmission line, said: ‘The ordinary meaning of the word “maintain” is to keep in a particular state or condition, especially with reference to efficiency; to support ; to sustain, to keep up; nor to suffer to fail or decline. ’ (Electric Service Co. v. City of Mullinville, 125 Kan. 70 [ 262 Pac. 536 ] ; see, also, Davis Holding Corporation v. Wilcox, 112 Conn. 543 [ 153 Atl. 169 ] ; Plimpton v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 221 Mass. 548 [ 109 N. E. 732 ] ; Board of Education of Earlville Community High School Dist. No. 380 v. Board of Education of Non-High School Dist. of La Salle Co., 343 Ill. 464 [ 175 N. E. 810 ].) The duty to maintain and keep in repair related to the structure itself and included a duty to repair or replace weakened or worn portions of the framework, roadway, curbing or sidewalk. It could hardly include the duty to keep the roadway clean and free of foreign substances. Street sweeping is a work which pertains more to the convenient use, good appearance and sanitary condition of a roadway or causeway than the maintenance of its integral parts or of the whole structure. The • duty to maintain a portion of the viaduct would hardly include a duty to keep the roadway clean and to remove sand, gravel and other debris falling upon it. The duty to keep the roadway clean rests upon the City as the viaduct was part of its system of public streets. (City of San Bernardino v. Railroad Commission, supra, at p. 568.)

“ The liability of the City must arise under the provisions of an act of the legislature which we will term the Public Liability Act. In Pittam v. City of Riverside, 128 Cal. App. 57 [ 16 Pac. (2d) 768 ], it was said: ‘This action was brought under the provisions of section 2 of an act of the legislature approved June 13, 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 675). Under this section of the act municipalities are made liable for injuries to property resulting from the dangerous or defective condition of public “grounds, works and property in all eases where the governing or managing board ... or person having authority to remedy such condition, had knowledge or notice of the defective or dangerous condition of any such . . . grounds, works or property and failed or neglected for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice, to remedy such condition or failed and neglected for a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice to take such action as may be reasonably necessary to protect the public against such dangerous or defective condition.” ’ . . .

“Under the provision of that portion of section 2 of the act, which we have just quoted, the following conditions must exist to support the judgment of" the court below: (1) The injuries to respondent through the destruction of his personal property must have resulted from a dangerous or defective condition of the dumping ground; (2) the city council of the City of Riverside, or some officer or person having authority to remedy such condition, must have had notice or knowledge thereof; (3) it, or he, must have failed or neglected to remedy such dangerous or defective condition within a reasonable time after acquiring such knowledge or receiving such notice; or, (4) must have failed to take such action as might be reasonably necessary to protect the public against such dangerous or defective condition within a reasonable time after such knowledge or notice.’

“The question arises: What effect did the order of the Railroad Commission placing the responsibility of maintaining the new level portion of the viaduct upon the Company have on the liability of the City for injuries caused on that portion, by its dangerous or defective condition? We conclude that it had none. The entire viaduct remained a public street of the City. The City has control over its streets and has both the power and the duty of keeping them in repair. Under the terms of the Public Liability Act the City is made responsible for injuries resulting from their dangerous and defective conditions under the limitations we have outlined. The order of the Commission did not purport to relieve the City of this duty and liability, assuming, but not holding, that it might have done so. It merely placed an added duty upon the Company without relieving the City from any of its duties or liabilities. It left the Company liable with the City for damages resulting from their separate obligations arising on the part of the one under the order of the Railroad Commission and the other under the terms of the Public Liability Act.

“The rules governing us in reviewing a judgment entered after granting a motion for nonsuit are clearly stated in Berger v. Lane, 190 Cal. 443 , at page 452 [ 213 Pac. 45 , 49], as follows: Every favorable inference fairly deducible and every favorable presumption fairly arising from the evidence adduced must be considered as facts proved in favor of the plaintiffs. Where evidence is fairly susceptible of two constructions, or if one of several inferences may reasonably be made, the court must take the view most favorable to plaintiffs. If contrary evidence has been given it must be disregarded. (Estate of Arnold, 147 Cal. 583 [ 82 Pac. 252 ].) The plaintiff must also be given the benefit of every piece of evidence which tends to sustain his averments, and such evidence must be weighed in the light most favorable to plaintiff’s claim. (Anderson v. Wickliffe, 178 Cal. 120 [ 172 Pac. 381 ].) Evidence, whether erroneously admitted or not, if relevant to the issues joined, must be given the credit and benefit of its full probative strength, and any question arising from the fact of variation between the evidence of the witnesses cannot be raised or considered. The evidence must be taken most strongly against the defendant, and if the plaintiff has introduced proof sufficient to make out a prima facie case under the allegations of his complaint the motion, if made upon the close of the case, should be denied. ’

“ From the evidence in this case the jury might have drawn the conclusions that the deceased persons were traveling south on their right-hand side of the viaduct at a prudent and safe speed and as they entered the curve a large sedan was approaching the curve from the east; that this required the driver of the Bosqui car to approach close to the curb on his right; that large splinters projecting from the facing came into contact with the front portion of the right front wheel and were forced into it between the tire and the rim; that this caused the wheel to cramp to the right and mount the curving and broken side of the facing and mount the curbing. It should be observed that the skid mark made by the left front wheel of the Hupmobile was only forty inches from the curbing, which was eleven inches in thickness before it was worn by traffic. This would make the left front wheel about fifty-one inches from the sidewalk side of the curbing or less than the standard tread of an automobile. The jury might have concluded that the right front wheel crossed the curbing and dropped onto the sidewalk on its inside; that the driver had the car in one of its lower gears as he had come to a stop shortly before; that to extricate himself from this difficulty with his front wheels astride of the curbing and the right resting on the sidewalk behind a timber four inches high he opened his throttle; that the wheel climbed the obstruction and dropped from the curb onto the roadway; that to complete this maneuver he had to cramp the front wheels to the left; that the impetus given by forcing the wheel over the obstruction and its dropping onto the roadway from a twelve-inch curbing with one of the lower gears engaged caused the ear to rapidly follow the direction of the cramp of the front wheels; that the jar caused by the drop from the curbing might have displaced the driver from the position where he had complete control of his vehicle; that before he could regain control of the car, it crashed through the north guard rail to the street below.

“This is but one of several inferences that might be drawn from the evidence, but is one that we feel is justified and is favorable to the ease of appellants. From it the conclusion may be drawn that the accident would not have happened but for the splinters entering the wheel and pulling its front sharply to the right where it mounted the curving face of the curbing instead of sliding along it as might have happened had the facing timber not been worn into an oval shape. This disposes of the contention that the evidence demonstrates that the condition of the curbing could not have been a proximate cause of the accident.

“ The evidence shows that many motor vehicle accidents, some of them involving deaths, had happened at this particular curve prior to the one involved here. This was well known to the responsible officers of the City, including its mayor. It was also known to the street superintendent that the planks and timbers forming the curbing were rapidly worn away by vehicles coming in contact with them. This constituted sufficient notice of the condition to the officers of the City. (Boyce v. San Diego High School District, 215 Cal. 293 [ 10 Pac. (2d) 62 ] ; Magwuson v. City of Stockton, 116 Cal. App. 532 [ 3 Pac. (2d) 30 ].) There is nothing to show that the City had taken any action immediately prior to the accident to remedy the dangerous or defective condition, if one existed. We believe that the question of whether the condition of the roadway was dangerous or defective should have been left to the jury for determination.

“Both respondents urge that the driver of the Bosqui car was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, this being the principal defense of the Company. They urge that after the right front wheel had mounted the curb and the car was stopped it was in a position of safety; that the driver caused it to leave this position and to proceed across and off the viaduct without the use of ordinary care or prudence. Under the conditions presented here we are required to resolve all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in favor of appellants. The question of the prudence of the actions of the driver after the right front wheel of the Hupmobile mounted or crossed the curbing is one upon which reasonable minds might well differ. Ordinarily the question of contributory negligence is one for the trier of fact in motor vehicle eases. In Mast v. Claxton, 107 Cal. App. 59 [ 290 Pac. 48 ], it.was said: ‘No two cases of automobile collisions are exactly alike, and each must be decided upon its own state of facts. According to the well-settled law of this state, negligence is, generally speaking, a matter of fact, and the same is true of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is a question of law only when the court is impelled to say that from the facts reasonable men can draw but one inference, and that inference points unerringly to the negligence of the plaintiff contributing to his injury. ’

“ The City urges that the Public Liability Act is unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of section 11 of article I of the state Constitution, in that it gives a right of action against cities, counties and other such public agencies and not against the state for damages resulting from the dangerous or defective condition of public streets. The history of the immunity of a public agency against suit for an injury suffered while it was acting in its governmental capacity takes us back to that doctrine of the common law which gave the sovereign immunity from suit upon the theory that ‘it was the “right divine of kings to govern wrong” ’. (Chafor v. City of Long Beach, 174 Cal. 478 [ 163 Pac. 670 , Ann. Cas. 1918D, 106, L. R. A. 1917E, 685].) The doctrine is applied in California and no action is permitted against the state or its political subdivisions when acting in a governmental capacity without legislative consent for without such consent the wrong is without a remedy. A somewhat similar contention was made in the case of Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507 [ 289 Pac. 160 ], where the constitutionality of section 1714½ of the Civil Code was considered. The Supreme Court said: ‘ “It is objected that the section is class legislation, in that it inures to the benefit of a favored class of citizens, that is, only those who are damaged through the negligent operation of automobiles owned by or used in the service of the state, and thereby makes a distinction in their favor as against citizens who may suffer damages through being injured by other state-owned and operated instrumentalities, and who are without recourse against the state because it has made no such remedial provision for them. This objection goes only to the policy of such legislation, and the wisdom of the legislature in enacting it. A right of action to one injured through the operation of an instrumentality used by the state did not exist at common law. It is not an inherent right, and exists only so far, and in favor of such persons as may be declared by the legislative power of the state. The provisions of the Constitution were not intended to make it necessary that the legislature, when conferring new rights of action upon particular classes of citizens for injuries not previously actionable, should, by the same act, declare that all persons who may suffer damages from injuries of that' character shall also have such right of action. (Pritchard v. Whitney Estate Co., 164 Cal. 564, 568 [ 129 Pac. 989 ].) Consequently, a law, to be general in its scope, need not include all classes of individuals in the state. It answers the constitutional requirements if it relates to and acts uniformly upon the whole of any single class of individuals or objects, and the classification is founded upon some natural, intrinsic or constitutional distinction. (Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, 230 [ 24 Pac. 383 ]; People v. Jordan, 172 Cal. 391, 397 [ 156 Pac. 451 ].) If good grounds for the classification exists, such classification is not void because it does not embrace .within it every other class which might be included. ’ We can find no merit in this argument of the City. ’ ’

The defendant City suggests that the Public Liability Act does not apply where the defective condition of the street or highway concurs with some other efficient cause or act of a third person to cause the injury. It is urged that a strict construction of the statute leads to this conclusion. The question is apparently new in tins state. A few decisions from other jurisdictions support this view. See Grenier v. Town of Glastonbury, 118 Conn. 477 [ 173 Atl. 160 ], Other courts hold the city liable in such a case. See Beebe v. Scotts Bluff County, 92 Neb. 501 [ 138 N. W. 737 ]; David, Municipal Liability in Tort in California, 7 So. Cal. Law Rev. 372, 440. In our opinion, where the thing exists which is denounced by the statute, namely, the neglect to remedy a dangerous or defective condition after knowledge thereof, and it proximately causes the injury, the City is liable under the clear meaning of the law despite the existence of another and concurring cause.

The judgment is reversed.

Rehearing denied.