In Beard v. David (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 175, 176 involved a passenger in a vehicle who sued the driver of another vehicle for injuries she sustained when the two collided in an intersection. One of the issues in the case was the speed the vehicle in which the plaintiff was riding entered the intersection. (Id. at p. 179.) The court instructed the jury regarding the prima facie speed limit as well as the basic speed law. (Id. at pp. 180-181.) At the request of the plaintiff, the court gave additional instructions regarding rebuttable presumptions. (Id. at p. 181.) The court determined there was sufficient evidence to support a prima facie speed limit instruction even though there was no direct evidence of the posted speed limit, because a police officer testified about the speed limit in the area and there was no dispute the intersection in which the accident occurred was in a business district. (Id. at p. 179.) The plaintiff contended the combined instructions placed on her a burden of proving the speed of the vehicle in which she was riding was not negligent. The appellate court concluded the defendant was entitled to the prima facie speed limit instruction even though proof of excess speed alone is not proof of negligence and any confusion regarding the combined instructions arose from instructions requested by the plaintiff. (Id. at pp. 181-182.)