Pinney v. Cahill
| Decision Date | 21 June 1882 |
| Citation | 48 Mich. 584,12 N.W. 862 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PINNEY v. CAHILL. |
Where during a ride the driver of a horse has a conversation with his companion as to the horse's appearance and condition and the conversation tends to show that the driver is exercising due care, it is admissible for that purpose in an action against the driver for injury alleged to have been caused the horse by his ill-usage and neglect.
Medical books may be read to a jury, not for the purpose of proving the fact therein stated, but to discredit the testimony of experts who claim to be familiar with them and refer to them as authority.
Error to Oakland.
A.C Baldwin, for plaintiff in error.
Edward Cahill, in pro. per., for defendant in error.
The defendant hired the plaintiff's horse to drive from Milford to Holley and back and the animal became sick and died. The plaintiff claimed that this was caused by defendant's ill-usage and neglect and he sued for damages. The jury found judgment against him and he brought this writ of error. Only two rulings are complained of and both were made in admitting evidence. The defendant proved that he left Milford soon after 9 o'clock in the morning to go to Holley some 15 miles away in company with Clark Crawford, and stopped at Buckthorn to give the horse water. He offered to show a conversation which occurred at that place between himself and Crawford about the appearance and condition of the horse at that time; the object being to establish that he acted considerately and exercised due care and prudence.
The plaintiff's counsel objected, but the court overruled the objection and we think rightly. What occurred at that time between Crawford and defendant in reference to the state and condition of the horse was pertinent and proper. It bore upon the questions whether the defendant was rash, heedless and indifferent, or awake, watchful and circumspect; and how he stood and acted in this respect, was involved in the case alleged against him. If he felt and acted as he ought, he was not liable. The defendant gave evidence that on two former occasions the horse when driven by other persons fell sick of colic, and adduced other testimony to raise an inference that the horse's death was owing to the same difficulty. The plaintiff produced a witness who swore that he was a veterinary surgeon of 25 years' standing, and his opinion as an expert being called for h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Bloom
...examination, was applied in later cases to varying fact situations. The next Michigan case to deal with this issue was Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584, 12 N.W. 862 (1882). This has long been cited as one of the leading cases on the subject. Cahill had hired plaintiff's horse and the animal b......
-
Kersten v. Great Northern Railway Company
...medical books were offered in evidence, nor was any effort made to introduce in evidence the opinion of any text writer. Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584, 12 N.W. 862; Ripon v. Bittel, 30 Wis. 614; Broadhead Wiltse, 35 Iowa 429; Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 89 Ill. 516; State v. Woo......
-
State v. Brunette
...approved authority upon the subjects under investigation. Ripon v. Bittel, 30 Wis. 614;Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 89 Ill. 516;Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584 ;State v. Wood, 53 N. H. 484; Rogers, Exp. Test. §§ 181, 182. The opinion of a witness may be tested by a cross-examining counsel b......
-
Ruth v. Fenchel
...Wilcox v. International Harvester Co., 278 Ill. 465, 116 N.E. 151 (Sup.Ct.1917), affirming 198 Ill.App. 33 (1916); Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584, 12 N.W. 862 (Sup.Ct.1882). (2) Where the expert does not purport to base his opinion on recognized medical works, the authorities are divided on......