In O'Banion v. Borba (1948) 32 Cal.2d 145, the plaintiffs had openly used and maintained two roads and a ditch on the defendants' land for more than five years. The defendants were aware of the plaintiffs' use of the roads and ditch, and the plaintiffs never sought or obtained permission to use them. (O'Banion at pp. 147-148.) On appeal, the defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs' use of the roads and ditch had been adverse rather than permissive. The California Supreme Court rejected the notion that any presumptions should arise from long-standing open use. (O'Banion at pp. 148-150.) "The preferable view is to treat the case the same as any other, that is, the issue is ordinarily one of fact, giving consideration to all the circumstances and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom. The use may be such that the trier of fact is justified in inferring an adverse claim . . . . There seems to be no apparent reason for discussing the matter from the standpoint of presumptions." (O'Banion at p. 149.)