Pa. Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Messenger, No. 12.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: DELAPLAINE, Judge
• Citation: 29 A.2d 653
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS' MUT. CASUALTY INS. CO. v. MESSENGER.
• Decision Date: 06 January 1943
• Docket Number: No. 12.

29 A.2d 653

PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS' MUT. CASUALTY INS. CO.
v.
MESSENGER.

No. 12.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 6, 1943.

29 A.2d 653

[Copyrighted material omitted.]

29 A.2d 654

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wicomico County; T. Sangston Insley and James M. Crockett, Judges.

Action by Robert W. Messenger against the Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, on a liability insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Before BOND, C. J., and SLOAN, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURY, and GRASON, JJ.

Frederick W. C. Webb, of Salisbury (Woodcock, Webb, Bounds & Travers, of Salisbury, on the brief), for appellant.

Ernest C. Clark, of Salisbury (Miles, Bailey & Clark, of Salisbury, on the brief), for appellee.

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, appellant,

29 A.2d 655

issued a liability insurance policy in 1939 to Robert W. Messenger, a produce hauler of Salisbury, appellee, insuring him against legal liability for bodily injuries or death up to $5,000 for one person and up to $10,000 for one accident, and against legal liability up to $5,000 for damage to property of others, caused by the operation of his Diesel motor truck and Trailmobile trailer while within a radius of 500 miles from Salisbury.

On March 14, 1940, during the life of the policy, the insured, while operating his motor truck in Yamassee, South Carolina, struck and damaged a filling station. The owners of the building attached his vehicles and recovered judgment against him for $1,267.80 for damages and $228.65 for storage and costs. The insurance company, while it had agreed to defend all suits brought against the insured on claims covered by the policy, refused to defend the attachment suit and to pay the judgment, claiming that Yamassee is not within a radius of 500 miles from Salisbury. Upon execution of the judgment, the Sheriff of Hampton County, South Carolina, sold the truck and trailer at auction for $537. After paying the storage charges and costs of suit from the proceeds of sale, the Sheriff paid the remainder upon the judgment.

The insured thereupon brought the instant suit in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County, alleging that he had lost his damaged truck and trailer as the result of breach of contract by the company. He claimed the sum of $1,420 for the loss of the truck and $200 for the loss of the trailer. The jury awarded him a verdict for $1,500. This appeal is from the judgment entered upon the verdict.

The appellant contends that no competent evidence was produced at the trial to show that Yamassee is within a radius of 500 miles from Salisbury. It appears from the record, however, that Dr. Lloyd Straughn, professor of science in the State Teachers College at Salisbury, testified that he had computed the distance between Salisbury and Yamassee to be exactly 490.37 miles. Dr. Straughn, who received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Johns Hopkins University, explained that in his study of trigonometry he learned how to measure distances on the earth's surface, and that he can compute the distance between two towns if he knows their latitude and longitude. He ascertained the latitude and longitude of Salis bury and Yamassee from maps of the United States Geodetic Survey. It is obvious that he was qualified to testify as an expert on the subject. The appellant's objection is that the Geodetic Survey maps were not produced at the trial. It is a familiar rule of evidence that a witness, in order to qualify as an expert, should have such special knowledge of the subject on which he is to testify that he can give the jury assistance in solving a problem for which their equipment of average knowledge is inadequate. It is sufficient if the Court is satisfied that the expert has in some way gained such experience in the matter as would entitle his evidence to credit. Wilson v. State, Md., 26 A.2d 770, 773. It is not a ground for excluding the testimony of an expert that he bases his statements in whole or in part upon what he has read, provided that his reading can be assumed to constitute part of his general knowledge adequate to enable him to form a reasonable opinion of his own. A witness is qualified to testify as an expert when he exhibits such a degree of knowledge as to make it appear that his opinion is of some value, whether such knowledge has been gained from observation or experience, standard books, maps of recognized authority, or any other reliable sources. The knowledge of an expert in any science or art would be extremely limited if it extended no further than inferences from happenings within his own experience. His testimony is...