MacLaren v. Bishop
| Decision Date | 09 June 1931 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MACLAREN v. BISHOP. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Alfred E. Baldwin Judge.
Action by Dorothy MacLaren against William F. Bishop to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant. The case was tried to the jury. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Philip Reich and Samuel Reich, both of Bridgeport, for appellant.
William F. Tammany, of South Norwalk, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
This action grew out of a collision between the automobile of the defendant and one in which the plaintiff was riding. The defendant offered evidence to prove that his automobile had come to a stop when it was struck by that in which the plaintiff was riding. In support of this contention, a witness, Fisher, who was not a witness of the collision, but had arrived at the scene some minutes later testified that he had observed the conditions with reference to the defendant's car, and was then asked whether in his opinion it had moved at all after it was struck. Upon objection that it did not appear that the witness had made sufficient examination to determine that fact, he was asked as to the examination he had made, and then, the original question being repeated, testified that he did not think it would have been possible for the car to have moved under its own power. Being inquired of further as to the condition of the car, he testified that, if it had been moved from its position, the spokes of the front wheel which was wrecked would have been crushed and left behind the car, and, if the car had moved, the wheel would have been twisted off. Counsel for the plaintiff then moved that the entire evidence be stricken out on the ground that the witness' opinion was of no importance, which motion was denied and an exception noted. Two other witnesses were asked substantially the same question, and the same ruling was made.
The point in issue here was whether the defendant's car moved after it was struck. These witnesses saw and examined the car shortly after the accident, and testified in substance that the damage to the front wheel was such that the car could not have moved after it was struck. The objection is made that the court should have limited the testimony to a statement of the facts-the nature and extent of the damage to the car-and should have excluded the conclusion of the witnesses that the car could not have moved after it was struck. The appellant invokes the rule that opinion evidence may not be given by a nonexpert witness based upon facts and conditions which can be made clear to the trier without the conclusion of the witness. When the data which the witness has observed can be so completely and exactly reproduced by him as to give the jury the exact impression they gave to him, his testimony as to such impression or conclusion is said to be superfluous, since the jury is then in a position to draw its own conclusion. The difficulty in the application of the rule arises in determining when the constituent facts and conditions in any particular case are such as to justify the exclusion of the opinion or conclusion of the witness. It is not excluded simply because it is an opinion. His conclusion is the sum of what he saw, and in its final analysis the offer is to prove a fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spigarolo, 13220
...the opinion relate[s] to physical or mental conditions.' Atwood v. Atwood, 84 Conn. 169, 174, 79 Atl. 59 [1911]." MacLaren v. Bishop, 113 Conn. 312, 314, 155 A. 210 (1931). "Because of the wide range of matters on which lay witnesses are permitted to give their opinion, the admissibility of......
-
McPheters v. Loomis
... ... without the intervention of the act of a third person would ... have been clearly admissible. MacLaren v. Bishop, ... 113 Conn. 312, 313, 155 A. 210; Lunny v. Pepe, 116 ... Conn. 684, 687, 165 A. 552. That the basis of the testimony ... was the ... ...
-
Robinson v. Faulkner
...that they could not otherwise reasonably be described to the jury. State v. McGinnis, 158 Conn. 124, 131, 256 A.2d 241; MacLaren v. Bishop, 113 Conn. 312, 314, 155 A. 210. In light of the availability of facts which could have been clearly described to the jury, it was within the discretion......
-
Stephanofsky v. Hill
...Spencer's Appeal, 77 Conn. 638, 643, 60 A. 289; Atwood v. Atwood, 84 Conn. 169, 172, 79 A. 59, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 591; MacLaren v. Bishop, 113 Conn. 312, 314, 155 A. 210; State v. McCarthy, 133 Conn. 171, 176, 49 A.2d 594. Testimony of this nature is not admitted as the expression of opinion b......