§ 1041. Nonexpert witnesses in general One may be permitted to testify from his actual knowledge as to the physical condition of an object without qualifying as an expert. The opinion of a nonexpert witness as to what was seen by another is not admissible as testimony." Nonexpert witnesses may give opinions of conditions and situations with which they are familiar, but which it is difficult to embody in words or reproduce before the jury.10 Where the injuries to plaintiff in an action for an assault are such as to require skilled men to determine the cause thereof, the question must be determined by the testimony of experts, and not by that of witnesses having no scientific knowledge.11 1042. Foundation Some foundation must be laid for the opinion of a witness to value by showing that he has had the means to form an intelligent opinion, derived from an adequate knowledge of the nature and kind of property in controversy and of its value.12 $1043. Discretion Admission of opinion evidence is largely within the discretion of the trial court.13 § 1044. Value The question of the value of real property is not one for expert testimony, and witnesses who are acquainted with the land and It was not necessary for the person who placed in position the water tanks in question to qualify as an expert tinner before being permitted to testify from his actual knowledge as to the physical condition of such tanks. Berryhill v. Strickland, 132 P. 687, 37 Okl. 496. Testimony as to ordinary matters connected with the treatment of a patient and observable by any one may be given by nonexpert witnesses. Yard v. Gibbons, 149 P. 422, 95 Kan. 802. Handley v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 59 P. 271, 61 Kan. 237. 19 Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Tp., 96 P. 68, 77 Kan. 580. 11 Willet v. Johnson, 76 P. 174, 13 Okl. 563. It was error to admit the evidence of a nonexpert witness as to expectancy of life of plaintiff. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Snedeger, 49 P. 103, 5 Kan. App. 700. 12 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Coyle, 104 P. 367, 24 Okl. 740. 13 Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 64 Okl. 131, 166 P. 431; Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. McAlary, 44 Okl. 326, 144 P. 583. know the market value of similar property in the locality are competent to state their opinion as to its value.14 Opinions of witnesses as to the value of property should be confined to the property in question, unless on cross-examination, for 14 Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Harvey, 44 Okl. 321, 144 P. 581; Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. McAlary, 44 Okl. 326, 144 P. 583; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Weldon, 39 Okl. 369, 135 P. 8; Wickstrum v. Carter. 58 P. 1020, 9 Kan. App. 439; Incorporated Town of Sallisaw v. Priest, 61 Okl. 9, 159 P. 1093; St. Louis, K. & A. Ry. Co. v. Chapman, 16 P. 695, 38 Kan. 307, 5 Am. St. Rep. 744. In an action against a railway for overflowing land, the admission of testimony as to the amount of damages is error; as the witness should be required to state the facts, and not conclusions, as to the amount of damage. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Hurley, 61 Okl. 241, 160 P. 910. Where witness for the owner testified that he could give opinion as to value of farm as a whole, but not of its separate tracts, the sustaining of objections to cross-examination as to how he could tell what whole tract was worth was not error. Craig v. Salina Northern R. Co., 172 P. 21, 102 Kan. 838. In condemnation proceedings against a railroad company, where damages are claimed from the probable overflow to result from interference with natural drainage, and from the insufficiency of ditches constructed by defendant, a witness is incompetent to testify as to such probable overflow, who is not a civil engineer, and has no special skill that would enable him to calculate the capacity of the ditches, the amount of water that would accumulate and the area that would be affected by the overflow. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Donelson, 25 P. 584, 45 Kan. 189. Railroad right of way.-At the trial of a case for damages for the taking of a right of way for a railroad through farming land, a farmer living in the neighborhood, who had knowledge of the farm for years, knew its location, advantages, character of soil, and its market value compared to other lands surrounding it, is a competent witness, and qualified to testify to the value of the land taken, and to the damages to the whole tract. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Cosper, 22 P. 634, 42 Kan. 561. A railroad track was put down in an alley in the city of A., on August 1, 1877. Witnesses were introduced to prove the damages to the lots abutting, who stated that they knew the market value of the said property on or about August 1, 1877. Held, that they were competent to testify to the value of said property, both before and immediately after the laying of said track. Central Branch U. P. R. Co. v. Andrews, 14 P. 509, 37 Kan. 162, judgment reversed 16 P. 338, 37 Kan. 641; Kansas City, O. L. & T. Ry. Co. v. Weidenmann, 94 P. 146, 77 Kan. 300; Ottawa, O. C. & C. G. R. Co. v. Fisher, 22 P. 713, 42 Kan. 675; Wichita & W. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 17 P. 322, 38 Kan. 675, reversing on rehearing judgment 16 P. 75, 38 Kan. 104; Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Muller, 25 P. 210, 45 Kan. 85; Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Easley, 26 P. 731, 46 Kan. 337. A witness testified that he was well acquainted with the farm before, at the time, and after the appropriation of the right of way, and with the value of land in that vicinity, and was then asked, "How much less, in your opin ion, was this farm worth after the railroad company had established their the purpose of testing the knowledge and competency of the witness, inquiry is made as to the value of adjoining property.15 In an action to recover damages caused by a nuisance, admission of evidence of witnesses in regard to the value of the property before and after the nuisance is error, where they state that they can only guess at the same.16 Farmers who have planted and cultivated orchards are competent witnesses to prove the value of fruit trees in the orchard of a neighbor that have been destroyed by fire, or to express opinions about the value of fruit trees of a certain kind, age, and condition, although they may not have seen or examined these particular trees.17 Testimony as to the condition and value of a building that has been destroyed is admissible.18 track through it?" Held a proper question. Wichita & W. R. Co. v. Kuhn, 16 P. 75, 38 Kan. 104, judgment reversed on rehearing 17 P. 322, 38 Kan. 675. In an action against a railroad company for damages for the appropriation of a right of way through farming land, it is error to permit a witness, who said he did not know the market value of the land, to testify that the land was damaged $10 per acre by reason of the construction of the road. Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Stewart, 31 P. 668, 50 Kan. 33. In an action for damages for taking a right of way, witnesses, not knowing the market value of the farm through which the road ran, are incompetent to testify to the damages. Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Munsell, 38 Okl. 253, 132 P. 906; Leroy & W. R. Co. v. Ross, 20 P. 197, 40 Kan. 598, 2 L. R. A. 217. 15 Kansas City & T. Ry. Co. v. Vickroy, 26 P. 698, 46 Kan. 248. 16 Stephens v. Gardner Creamery Co., 57 P. 1058, 9 Kan. App. 883. 17 Latham v. Brown, 29 P. 400, 48 Kan. 190; Chicago, K. & W. R. Co. v. Mouriquand, 25 P. 567, 45 Kan. 170. In action for destruction of shade trees, former county clerk and assessor familiar with the property and its then market value, and local real estate agent, stating that he knew value of trees, were competent to testify as to damages. Hoffer. v. Emporia Gas Co., 103 Kan. 354, 589, 175 P. 393. 18 A witness who testified that he knew the value of a barn which he had built shortly before, and whose testimony showed an intimate knowledge of the different parts of the barn in controversy, could give his opinion as to the value of the barn. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Huitt, 41 P. 1051, 1 Kan. App. 788. Where plaintiff had purchased the materials used in constructing and equipping the factory destroyed by fire, held, that he was competent to testify to the value of the plant. Hollinger v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 146 P. 1034, 94 Kan. 316, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 802. Testimony as to the condition and value of buildings destroyed by a fire started by defendant's locomotive, based on an examination of the ruins long It is not error to admit testimony of the total value of property destroyed by fire where the same witness has testified in detail as to the value of the various items burned.19 Farmers are qualified to testify as to the value of growing crops at the time of their destruction.20 A stock raiser or dealer is competent to testify to the value of stock. 21 A witness is not required to be an expert to testify to the reasonable or market value of goods, such as ordinary wearing apparel and household furniture; the value of such articles being within the knowledge of ordinary experience.22 after the fire by the witnesses, who had not seen them within several weeks before the fire, is incompetent. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lipprand, 5 Kan. App. 484. 47 P. 625. Witnesses who are not architects, builders or contractors may be allowed to state their opinions as to the worth of a building from a general knowledge of it without being able to estimate the value of any of the materials entering into its construction. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Payne, 46 P. 315, 57 Kan. 291. 19 St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Weldon, 39 Okl. 369, 135 P. 8. 20 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dale, 128 P. 137, 36 Okl. 114. 21 Where a witness had been a cattle raiser or dealer, and had priced cattle at the time those in question, alleged to have been damaged, were placed on the market, he was competent to testify as to the value or damage to the cattle in question. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bilby, 130 P. 1089, 35 Okl. 589. A farmer, 70 years old, who had handled horses nearly all his life, and testified that he knew the market value of the horse in question, held qualified to state the value. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Mounts, 44 Okl. 359, 144 P. 1036. Where an owner of sheep testifies that he knows the market value of such animals, it is not error to permit him to give his estimate of their value. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Larson, 138 P. 173, 41 Okl. 360. A farmer, living in the neighborhood where certain farm horses are sold, who knows their value, the character of work done by them upon the farm, and has hired horses to do such work for himself, is qualified to testify what the value of the use of such a team is. Kennett v. Fickel, 21 P. 93, 41 Kan. 211. A woman who had lived on a farm 17 years, and who during that time had bought and sold hogs, horses, and cattle, and had actually purchased all of the cattle sued for in replevin, was competent to express an opinion as to the value of such cattle. Chandler v. Parker, 70 P. 368, 65 Kan. 860. 22 O. K. Transfer & Storage Co. v. Neill, 59 Okl. 291, 159 P. 272, L. R. A. 1917A, 58; Rogers v. 0. K. Bus & Baggage Co., 46 Okl. 289, 148 P. 837, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 581. A witness who had charge of goods and knew all about the stock of goods, its cost, value, and what it actually brought on the market, is competent to testify to the value of the property. Hindman v. Askew Saddlery Co., 57 It is not objectionable to permit the plaintiff in an action for services, after testifying that the services were rendered, to testify to their value.28 23 In fixing the value of time lost by an adult injured party, the opinions of witnesses as to what he would be capable of earning at vocations in which he had never been employed are inadmissible.2+ In an action for personal injuries, the evidence of plaintiff as to the quantum of damages sustained, is inadmissible as a conclusion and an invasion of the province of the jury.20 25 In an action by a contractor for damages for a breach of contract to dig gas wells, the testimony of witnesses who have had experience in drilling wells on the same farm and other wells in the vicinity, where the strata appears to be the same, and the condition similar, is competent to show the cost of the work contracted for and prevented by the owner.20 Testimony of witnesses as to usable or rental value of a machine to recover which an action is brought is admissible, where based on the experience in renting such machine.27 § 1045. Paternity, race, and age Resemblance between a child and its putative father is not a subject of opinion evidence, and hence opinions as to family resemblance between the two are not admissible in proof of paternity.28 On an issue whether one is a negro or a white person, witnesses P. 1050, 9 Kan. App. 98; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Crowell, 127 P. 1063, 33 Okl. 773. In an action for loss of household goods and wearing apparel having no market value, the owner, who is familiar with the lost articles, has purchased, and used them, was competent to testify as to their value to him. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Dunham, 129 P. 862, 36 Okl. 724. On a trial for conversion of goods, a question asked of defendant as to the value of the goods at the time he took possession of them, under a claim as mortgagee, is not incompetent. Robinson v. Peru Plow & Wheel Co., 31 P. 988, 1 Okl. 140. 23 Carter v. Christie, 42 P. 256, 1 Kan. App. 604. 24 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Chance, 45 P. 60, 57 Kan. 40. 25 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Teese, 140 P. 1166, 42 Okl. 188, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 167. 26 Fredonia Gas Co. v. Bailey, 94 P. 258, 77 Kan. 296. |