Tully v. Mahoning Exp. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 33762,33762 |
| Citation | 119 N.E.2d 831,45 A.L.R.2d 1144,161 Ohio St. 457 |
| Parties | , 45 A.L.R.2d 1144, 53 O.O. 354 TULLY v. MAHONING EXP. CO., Inc. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a lay witness in an action is a party and has some knowledge of the pertinent facts, he may express an opinion relevant to the issue and relating to a matter with which he is familiar.
2. There is no presumption that a witness is competent to give an opinion, and it is incumbent upon the party offering opinion testimony to show that the witness possesses the necessary learning, knowledge, skill, or practical experience to enable him to competently give such testimony.
3. In the absence of a preliminary showing that the plaintiff in a personal injury action has technical knowledge and experience concerning medical treatment and hospitalization costs, it is prejudicial error for the trial court to permit him, over objection, to testify and give his opinion as to the extent of his further medical treatment and hospitalization, the estimated expense of such treatment and hospitalization and the estimated time of his future unemployment as a result of such treatment and hospitalization.
On February 22, 1951, plaintiff, appellee herein, was severely injured when his car which he was driving came in collision with a trailer of the defendant, which had become detached from a tractor-trailer outfit being operated in the opposite direction on the highway. As a result of his injuries, the plaintiff went through an extended period of hospitalization at various hospitals in Youngstown and Cleveland and at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
The trial herein was in February 1953. The liability of the defendant, appellant herein, was conceded and the sole question involved is the question of damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $60,000, on which judgment was entered. Three physicians called by the plaintiff testified as to the injuries and treatment of the plaintiff and as to his physical condition at the time of trial. Two of the physicians testified, among other things, that the next and further procedure in the treatment of the plaintiff would be orthopedic surgery on plaintiff's back with possible fusing of that part of the spine which caused plaintiff's difficulty.
Plaintiff, a layman, had been employed in a steel fabricating plant in Warren, Ohio, and at the time of his accident was receiving a wage of approximately $525 per month. Over the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff, without any preliminary testimony as to qualifications, was permitted to testify concerning the extent of his further medical treatment and hospitalization, the estimated expense of such treatment and hospitalization, and the estimated time of his future unemployment as a result of such treatment and hospitalization. No physician or surgeon or other witness was called to testify on these subjects. In the course of his examination in the plaintiff testified on these subjects as follows:
'Mr. Ranz: Object to it.
'The Court: He may answer yes or no. A. Yes.
'
'Mr. Ranz: Object.
'Mr. Ranz: I ask that the answer be excluded and the jury instructed to disregard it.
'Mr. Ranz: Object to it.
'Mr. Ranz: Ask the answer be excluded.
'The Court: It may remain.
'* * *
'
'Mr. Ranz: Object to it.
'Mr. Ranz: Ask that the answer be excluded.
'The Court: It may remain. * * *
'* * *
'
'Mr. Ranz: I ask that that answer be excluded and the jury told to disregard it.
'Mr. Guarnieri: I took out medical and simply said future hospital $2,000.'
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas Court.
The cause is now in this court on appeal by reason of the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Guarnieri & Secrest, Warren, for appellee.
Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman and John H. Ranz, Youngstown, for appellant.
The sole complaint of the defendant is that the trial court committed prejudicial error in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Maupin
...not ordinarily possessed by laymen. McKay Machine Co. v. Rodman (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 77, 228 N.E.2d 304; Tully v. Mahoning Express Co. (1954), 161 Ohio St. 457, 119 N.E.2d 831. The qualification of an expert is a matter for determination by the court on the facts, and rulings with respect ......
-
R.T. v. Knobeloch
...St.2d 473, 330 N.E.2d 708 (1975) ; Akron v. Pub. Util. Comm. , 5 Ohio St.2d 237, 215 N.E.2d 366 (1966) ; and Tully v. Mahoning Express Co. , 161 Ohio St. 457, 119 N.E.2d 831 (1954). {¶ 77} It is a general rule that the expert witness is not required to be the best witness on the subject. Al......
-
Drayton v. Jiffee Chemical Corporation
...on her average life expectancy approximately $600,000 would be expended for medical care. See generally, Tully v. Mahoning Express Co., 161 Ohio St. 457, 119 N.E.2d 831 (1954). In any action involving the award of damages, the objective is to compensate the injured party for his loss and ma......
-
Riedel v. Akron Gen. Health Sys.
..., 2011-Ohio-6261, 975 N.E.2d 1, at ¶ 33, citing Day v. Gulley, 175 Ohio St. 83, 191 N.E.2d 732 (1963), and Tully v. Mahoning Express Co., 161 Ohio St. 457, 119 N.E.2d 831 (1954).{¶ 32} Here, the jury determined that Dr. Kalapodis's negligence was the proximate cause of Riedel's paraplegia. ......