Courts can only work on the competing "facts" that opposing consul present. In this case the failure was not on the part of the court but on the part of the lawyer.
Exactly.
If, for example, the judge happens to be an experienced diver and KNOWS what the agencies teach about buddy checks, he is NOT ALLOWED to apply his own knowledge unless one lawyer or the other places that very evidence on the record through the testimony of an expert witness. This is called the doctrine of "judicial notice". To preserve the transparency of the court proceedings, a judge can only take judicial notice of (i.e., apply his own knowledge about) facts which are "notorious", i.e., extermely widely known. Nothing about diving is that widely known.
EDIT: Sorry about the thread drift. I will refrain in future.
Last edited:
