Young v. Burke, 18323
| Decision Date | 27 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 18323,18323 |
| Citation | 338 P.2d 284,139 Colo. 305 |
| Parties | Charles V. YOUNG and Marie J. Young, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Loretta M. BURKE, Administratrix of the Estate of John Sahm, Deceased, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Paul Snyder, Castle Rock, for plaintiffs in error.
Truitt & Elsner, Denver, for defendant in error.
This action was originally commenced as an attachment suit in the district court of Elbert County for services rendered to an elderly man and his wife over a period of five years. The wife had died prior to the commencement of the action. No claim was made against her estate. The action was commenced during the life of John Sahm who died before the cause could be tried. The defendant in error Loretta M. Burke, as administratrix of the estate of John Sahm, was substituted as a party defendant.
Plaintiffs in error were plaintiffs in the lower court and will be referred to as such. Defendant in error will be referred to as administratrix.
One of the assignments of error by plaintiffs is that the court erred in excluding testimony of Rev. Bollinger of the value of meals furnished. The only other assignment is that the judgment of the court was erroneous.
Plaintiffs offered to establish the value of meals furnished to decedents by calling Rev. Bollinger, a minister in the area, who had observed the preparation of some of the meals and had seen the quality and quantity of the food when he was in the house. The administratrix objected to his testimony on the ground that the witness had not been qualified as an expert, and the court sustained the objection. The law is clear that a non-expert witness can testify as to common, ordinary things within the realm and knowledge of the average layman. Experts are called in only when the subject is related to some service, profession, business or occupation beyond the knowledge of the average layman. Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., vol. 3, § 712, states the rule thusly:
'The general tendency of the Courts, however, is towards a broad principle that no special training or occupation is necessary to enable one to estimate values.'
With reference to services, the author continues at § 715:
'The general test, to be gathered from the rulings, is that anyone sufficiently familiar with the commercial value of such services may testify.'
It would seem that under the generally accepted rule, the court, when sitting as a trier of the facts, or a jury, is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Borden, Inc.
...is generally confined to matters which are within the common knowledge and experience of an average person. See Young v. Burke, 139 Colo. 305, 338 P.2d 284, 285 (1959) (en banc); see also SCRA 1986, 11-701. However, subject to the trial court's discretion, testimony concerning the personal ......
-
Board of Assessment Appeals of State of Colo. v. Colorado Arlberg Club
...considered and weighed together with the other evidence. See People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973); Young v. Burke, 139 Colo. 305, 307, 338 P.2d 284, 285 (1959) ("the court, when sitting as a trier of the facts, ... is the final judge of the weight and credibility of the witnes......
-
Tompkins v. DeLeon
...were in effect long prior to the 1973 codification of our statutes. These provisions were clear and unambiguous. Young v. Burke, 139 Colo. 305, 338 P.2d 284 (1959); Brantner v. Papish, 109 Colo. 437, 126 P.2d 1032 (1942). They concerned the competency of witnesses. Estate of Freeman v. Youn......
-
DeLeon v. Tompkins
...to the issue in this case. The language of the statute is so clear and unambiguous that it requires no construction. Young v. Burke, 139 Colo. 305, 338 P.2d 284 (1959); Brantner v. Papish, 109 Colo. 437, 126 P.2d 1032 (1942). The plaintiffs were incompetent to testify, over objection, upon ......
-
Opinion and Expert Testimony Under the Proposed Colorado Rules of Evidence
...9. Sherry v. Jones, 133 Colo. 160, 292 P.2d 746 (1956); Eagan v. Maiselson, 142 Colo. 233, 350 P.2d 567 (1960). 10. Young v. Burke, 139 Colo. 305, 338 P.2d 284 (1959). 11. City and County of Denver v. Lyttle, 106 Colo. 157, 103 P.2d 1 (1940); Jones v. Blegan, supra, note 7; Boehm v. Fox, 47......