Ramsey v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 March 1968 |
Docket Number | 16296.,No. 16295,16295 |
Parties | Lorraine V. RAMSEY, personal representative of the Estate of William T. Ramsey, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC., a Michigan corporation, and Bernard A. Vosholler, Defendants-Appellants. A & H TRUCK LINE, INC., an Indiana corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC., a Michigan corporation, and Bernard A. Vosholler, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Gaylon L. Clark, Jr., William E. Statham, Evansville, Ind., for appellants.
John L. Carroll, Edwin W. Johnson, Charles C. Griffith, Evansville, Ind., Johnson & Carroll, Evansville, Ind., of counsel, for appellees.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, MAJOR, Senior Circuit Judge and SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
In case No. 16295, Complete Auto Transit, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and Bernard A. Vosholler, defendants, have appealed to this court from a final judgment for $70,000 entered by the district court on February 16, 1967, following a trial by jury, in favor of Lorraine V. Ramsey, personal representative of the estate of William T. Ramsey, deceased, plaintiff-appellee, and against said appellants, as defendants therein.
In case No. 16296, the same appellants have appealed from a judgment of the district court in the amount of $10,774.13, entered February 16, 1967, following the same trial, in favor of A & H Truck Line, Inc., an Indiana corporation, plaintiff, and against said appellants as defendants.
In this court the appeals were consolidated for all purposes.
In No. 16295, the action by plaintiff was to recover damages for the death of William T. Ramsey caused by a collision between two trailer units, while the action by plaintiff A & H Truck Line, Inc., in No. 16296, was for damages to its tractor which was being driven by the decedent.
On April 29, 1966 at 10:20 A.M., defendant Vosholler was driving an auto-trailer unit for Complete Auto Transit, Inc.1 in a westerly direction on state highway 56 about 2½ miles east of Haysville, Indiana, and decedent was driving a tractor-trailer unit of plaintiff A & H Truck Line, Inc.2 in an easterly direction on said highway. It had been raining and the asphalt surface of the roadway was wet and slick. Vosholler had never before driven on this road. The description of the circumstances of the collision which occurred, as interpreted by counsel for the respective parties, we now set forth.
This is the version of plaintiff's counsel:
The following statement indicates how the version of defendants' counsel amplifies the foregoing version:
It being conceded that there were no eye witnesses to the collision, both sides felt it necessary to introduce expert testimony in the district court. Thus witnesses, described by the lawyers herein as "reconstruction experts", testified. For instance, Loren Ayres was called by plaintiff,3 but no objection was made by defense counsel to his qualifications and it is too late in this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Senco Products, Inc. v. Riley
...to his qualifications at trial. 3 Zeigler Building Materials, Inc. v. Parkison, (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1330; Ramsey v. Complete Auto Transit, (7th Cir. 1968) 393 F.2d 41. Even if not waived, the court committed no error. The question of an expert's qualifications is for the trial judge......
-
Walters v. Kellam and Foley
...R.R., Inc. v. Freeman, supra, at 136; Lockmondy v. Jester (3d Dist. 1976) Ind.App. 343 N.E.2d 793, 796; Ramsey v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. (1968) 7th Cir., 393 F.2d 41, 44. In the light of our determinations that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony which we have designated a......
-
Michael v. United States
... ... that the certified material is, in any sense, a complete record, even for the interval between the two designated ... ...
-
Herman v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.
...not having been raised in the trial court, cannot be raised for the first time as appeal. See, e. g., Ramsey v. Complete Auto Transit Inc., 393 F.2d 41, 43 (7th Cir. 1968). CB & I also challenges Bradfield's testimony as having been elicited by leading questions. Plaintiffs called Bradfield......