How have courts treated the contention of the corporation that the ordinance was inadmissible in proof of a cause of action against it?

We will treat first of the contention of the corporation that the ordinance was inadmissible in proof of plaintiffs' cause of action against it. This contention cannot be sustained. Appellant argues that the ordinance had not been pleaded and that it had objected to its introduction upon that basis; that the court overruled the objection, expressing the opinion that it appeared to the court it was not necessary [137 Cal.App.2d 9] to plead the ordinance because it was admissible under the general issue of negligence raised by the pleading. In so ruling the court was correct. We quote the following from Jackson v. Hardy, 70 Cal.App.2d 6, 12, 160 P.2d 161, 164: