Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

79

susceptible of being placed before the jury, and from them the jury are capable of determining whether one was guilty of negligence. It has been held that the testimony of experienced persons is admissible as to whether or not a particular device is reasonably safe, the erection of a dam would back up water so as to affect the operation of a mill situated above the proposed dam,81 the place where an accident occurred is a dangerous place to work,82 it is dangerous to catch a locomotive which is moving at a certain rate of speed, a locomotive properly equipped would throw sparks sufficient to ignite property on the right of way, railway signals

80

83

84

he had examined is not competent to show that the title claimed by one of the parties is imperfect. Stiles v. Steele, 15 P. 561, 37 Kan, 552.

A witness was asked whether, after having examined the door of the boiler in question, and the door, after its explosion, he could say from his knowledge and experience in the handling and using of boilers, if a man in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable precaution could have told this boiler was defective in any way, to which an objection was sustained. Held, that the question did not call for expert evidence, save in the slight degree furnished by the experience of witness in handling boilers, and the ruling was proper. Wise v. Lillie, 84 Kan. 86, 113 P. 403.

79 Louisville, E. & St. L. C. R. Co. v. Berry, 35 N. E. 565, 9 Ind. App. 63. In an action against a sheriff for the wrongful seizure of goods, a witness who testified that he had been a merchant one year, and had been sheriff of the county, and had attached several stocks, was asked if these goods were as well handled and cared for as goods usually are when attached. Held, that the question should have been excluded, as calling for witness' opinion in a matter not competent for expert testimony. Dow v. Julien, 4 P. 1000, 32 Kan. 576. 80 Whether a particular device for operating a circular saw is reasonably safe is a subject for expert evidence. King v. King, 100 P. 503, 79 Kan. 584. Opinion evidence that a machine is unsafe is admissible, where the machine is so complicated that the grounds of the opinion cannot be fully exhibited to the jury. Wells v. Swift & Co., 133 P. 732, 90 Kan. 168.

81 Expert testimony is competent to show what effect the erection of a milldam will have on the channel of a stream above such dam, and whether such dam backs the water up so as to affect the operation of a mill situated above the dam. Ball v. Hardesty, 16 P. S08, 38 Kan. 540.

82 In a mine employé's action for injuries from the derailment of a coal car. it is not error to permit experienced miners to state whether the place where the accident occurred was a dangerous place to work. Great Western Coal & Coke Co. v. Malone, 136 P. 403, 39 Okl. 693.

Opinions of experts, as to whether it was practicable to guard the machinery involved held admissible, where their knowledge was superior to that of the jury. Warfield v. Morgan, 121 P. 489, 86 Kan, 524.

83 Whether there would be any danger to an experienced man in catching a train moving from 6 to 8 miles an hour held a proper subject for expert testimony. Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 45 Okl. 173, 145 P. 367.

84 A locomotive engineer of long experience who understands the operation

were properly set,85 an engineer is competent,88 a filling would stop the flow of water,87 the treatment of stock contributed to its depreciation, or the framework of a building was negligently constructed.8

88

89

The opinion of a witness, showing the proper qualifications to speak as an expert on the effect on persons and buildings of the explosion of a certain amount of dynamite within a certain distance, is proper evidence in an action to enjoin the prosecution of the business in which the dynamite is used."0

In an action on a fire insurance policy, where the sole question is whether spontaneous combustion occurred, it is not error to permit an expert to define "fire," "ignition," "ignition point," the relation between "fire" and "flame" and kindred terms of which the meaning is commonly understood by all well-informed persons.o1

of spark arresters in locomotives, may testify as to whether a locomotive equipped with a first-class spark arrester would throw sparks sufficient to ignite property on the right of way. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. B. F. Blaker & Co., 75 P. 71, 68 Kan. 244, 64 L. R. A. 81, 1 Ann. Cas. 883.

In an action against a railroad company to recover damages caused by fire, it is competent to show by hypothetical questions propounded to experts that an engine properly equipped and carefully operated will not set a fire. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Noland, 90 P. 273, 75 Kan. 691.

85 Opinions of experienced railway men as to "good condition" of signals set so close to track as to endanger trainmen are competent in an action on managing railway's claim for expenses in keeping signals in good condition. Bush v. Chicago Great western Ry. Co., 103 Kan. 385, 175 P. 160.

86 To rebut the presumption of negligence of a railroad company arising from the occurrence of a fire, expert testimony is admissible on the issue of the competency of the engineer of the engine causing the fire. Saunders v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 119 P. 552, 86 Kan. 56.

87 The defendant, after the boring of a well under contract with plaintiff, having insisted upon having the space outside the pump pipe filled with pounded stone and gravel, the testimony of experienced well diggers is admissible to show that such filling would stop the flow of water. Boston v. Hewitt, 58 P. 619, 8 Okl. 401.

88 In an action for damage to a delayed shipment of cattle, an expert witness' testimony that certain treatment within the issues contributed to the depreciation of the cattle has been held competent. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Shepard, 139 P. 833, 40 Okl. 589.

89 Expert testimony is admissible on the issue of the negligent construction of the framework of a building, where such framework was so complicated that the jury could not understand its construction without expert testimony. Henry v. Morris & Co., 140 P. 413, 42 Okl. 13.

41.

90 Remsberg v. Iola Portland Cement Co., 84 P. 548, 73 Kan. 66.

91 Sun Ins. Office of London v. Western Woolen Mill Co., 82 P. 513, 72 Kan.

Testimony of a farmer, who is an expert on the value of a growing crop, is admissible to prove the value thereof.92

A veterinary surgeon who treated certain poisoned horses, and gave the effect of the poison on them, and was acquainted with the general effects of such poison on horses, may testify to the permanency of the injuries, and if he is acquainted with the general value of such horses, he may testify to the damages occasioned by such injuries.94

95

96

Expert testimony has been held inadmissible to show that elevators are unsafe, where evidence could be given of the results of their use, that telephone poles placed along the right of way migh: frighten horses, that land contained in tax books describes the same land as that described in a tax deed," or to show that a bridge is unsafe, where the character and extent of its defects are comprehensible by the jury.98

Where the injury complained of is of such character as to require skilled and professional men to determine the cause thereof, the question is one of science and must necessarily be proved by the testimony of skilled professional persons,9"

92 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 107 P. 662, 25 Okl. 760, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 879.

93 Coyle v. Baum, 41 P. 389,.3 Okl. 695.

94 Coyle v. Baum, 41 P. 389, 3 Okl. 695.

95 In an action for injuries to a servant by the fall of a friction elevator, the opinions of experts that such elevators were unsafe and improper to be used is inadmissible, the best evidence of reliability being the demonstrated results of their use, which can be shown by evidence. Root v. Cudahy Packing Co., 129 P. 147, 88 Kan. 413, rehearing denied 129 P. 1199, 89 Kan. 8.

96 In an action to recover for injuries from alleged negligence in placing telephone poles on the side of a highway in such a manner as to frighten horses, where the location and all the surrounding circumstances can be easily described by witnesses, opinions of experts as to whether the poles were calculated to frighten horses is inadmissible. Missouri & K. Telephone Co. v. Vandevort, 72 P. 771, 67 Kan. 269.

97 The evidence of an expert attorney and abstractor is inadmissible to show that a reasonably certain description of land contained in various tax books and proceedings connected with its sale for taxes described the same land as that described in the tax deed. McWilliams v. Great Spirit Springs Co., 52 P. 905, 7 Kan. App. 210.

98 Murray v. Board of Com'rs of Woodson County, 48 P. 554, 58 Kan. 1. 99 Ft. Smith & W. Ry. Co. v. Hutchinson (Okl.) 175 P. 922; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Criner, 137 P. 705, 41 Okl, 256; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. Jones, 63 Okl. 228, 163 P. 1110.

A physician's expression of opinion that plaintiff's appearance could have

The trial court should not permit an expert witness to state whether the present condition of the injured and his ailments are the direct results of the collision in question, and whether or not the collision caused that condition and such ailments.1

While medical experts may properly state whether in their opinion a person was of unsound mind, it is not competent for them to give an opinion as to whether the person had sufficient mental capacity to make a contract.2

It is competent to prove the law of another state by the testimony of a person learned therein."

A lawyer familiar with statutes and decisions of another state can testify to whether a chattel mortgage witnessed in a certain way is void under the law of such state.*

Expert testimony as to the value of legal service rendered is not necessary, when there is evidence of the services rendered, the character of the litigation, and results obtained sufficient to form a basis for determining the value of such services.5

§ 1062. Competency of experts

Before a witness can be examined as an expert the party calling him must show him to be qualified."

been caused by a beating held admissible. Musick v. Enos, 148 P. 624, 95 Kan. 397.

In an action under the compensation act, expert testimony of physicians is admissible to show that partial disability exists. Sillix v. Armour & Co., 160 P. 1021, 99 Kan. 103, judgment modified on rehearing 162 P. 278, 99 Kan. 426. In passenger's action for injury admission of opinions of physicians derived from examination of plaintiff that they believed that she was shamming held not erroneous, though they were to be viewed with caution. Hopson v. Union Traction Co., 101 Kan. 499, 167 P. 1059.

1 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Sheldon, 51 P. 808, 6 Kan. App. 347.

2 Coblentz v. Putifer, 125 P. 30, 87 Kan. 719, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 298. Neither an expert nor a nonexpert witness may give a mere abstract statement that in his opinion a person was or was not capable of making a particular contract. Brown v. Brown, 152 P. 646, 96 Kan. 510.

3 Palmer v. Hudson River State Hospital, 61 P. 506, 10 Kan. App. 98. The unwritten or common law of another state may be proved by expert evidence. Cole v. District Board of School Dist. No. 29, McIntosh County, 123 P. 426, 32 Okl. 692, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 459; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 123 P. 428, 32 Okl. 665.

4 Woods County Union Bank v. Shore, 123 P. 880, 87 Kan. 140. McClintock v. Parish (Okl.) 180 P. 689.

Dolan v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 94 N. Y. S. 241, 105 App. Div. 366. Before a witness can be permitted to testify to the value of land, he must

The competency of witnesses is for the court, while the value of their opinion evidence is for the jury."

Witnesses who, because of experience, study, and observation know more about a particular subject than persons without experience are competent to testify as experts, though others may be more expert, and though they disclaim being experts.10

first show that he possesses sufficient information to qualify him to so testify. Whitehead v. Jefferson, 51 Okl. 42, 151 P. 681.

It is error to permit a witness to testify how much wheat an ordinarily good reaper will ordinarily cut in a day, until it has been shown that the witness is competent to testify in regard to such matter. Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Nicholson, 5 P. 164, 32 Kan. 666.

A witness cannot give his opinion as to the shrinkage of cattle by delay in course of shipment, without first showing that he has had experience as a shipper, or has handled cattle in course of shipment, and observed the effects of transportation upon them. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Mason, 46 P. 31, 4 Kan. App. 391.

Where a witness to value is offered as an expert, some foundation must be laid for his opinion, 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. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Coyle, 104 P. 367, 24 Okl. 740.

7 Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Farmers' Gin Co., 39 Okl. 162, 134 P. 443; Garnett v. Storm, 64 Okl. 137, 166 P. 401; Yates v. Garrett, 92 P. 142, 19 Okl. 449; Whitehead v. Jefferson, 51 Okl. 42, 151 P. 681; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Baker, 130 P. 577, 37 Okl. 48.

Where a witness is offered as an expert but it appears that he possesses little general intelligence, the court may refuse to allow him to give opinion testimony, even though it appear that he has had some experience in the matter in question. Broquet v. Tripp, 14 P. 227, 36 Kan. 700.

8 Denver v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 150 P. 562, 96 Kan. 154, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1007.

Held competent to testify.—Where there is a uniformity in the rules of practice of different schools a qualified practitioner of any school is competent to testify whether treatment was negligently administered. Yard v. Gibbons, 149 P. 422, 95 Kan. 802.

A person who knows the usage among commission merchants may testify thereto, though he is not himself a commission merchant. Gregg v. Garverick, 5 P. 751, 33 Kan. 190.

A manager of a cold storage plant of nine years' experience, having had occasion to observe the condition of frozen products, was held qualified to tes

9 Denver v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 150 P: 562, 96 Kan. 154, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1007.

10 Where a witness shows himself to be an expert in the matter concerning which he gives an opinion, his testimony is properly received as an expert, though he disclaims being such. Yates v. Garrett, 92 P. 142, 19 Okl. 449; Walker v. Scott, 61 P. 1091, 10 Kan. App. 413.

« ZurückWeiter »