Bishop v. Wight

Citations

• 221 F. 392
• 137 C.C.A. 200
• 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1343

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence @=514—Opinion Evidence,—Subjects op Expert .Testimony.</p> <p>A question asked an expert witness as to the distance within which an electric coupé could have been stopped after a five-passenger touring ear came in contact with one of the front wheels, turning the wheels towards the curb, assuming that the electric car was operating under the first or second speed, was properly excluded as calling for a matter which was not a proper subject for expert testimony, as the expert could have formed no more accurate judgment of the effect of the impact of the touring car against the electric coupé than the jury could form for itself, and the only aid he could have given would have been for him to have stated within what distance a vehicle of the type in question and running at the rate given could have been stopped.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2319-2323; Dec. Dig. ©=514.]</p> <p>2. Municipal Corporations ©=706—Injuries prom Negligent Use op</p> <p>Streets—Questions por Jury.</p> <p>' Where, in an action for the death of a person struck by an electric automobile while on a sidewalk, the evidence showed that defendant was driving his car with due care when another automobile came in contact with one of the front wheels of his car, turing the wheels towards the curb, and so displacing the steering mechanism and power control as to temporarily render the car beyond defendant’s power to control it, and that he did all he could to stop the car before striking deceased, a verdict for defendant was properly directed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1518; Dee. Dig. ©=706.]</p> <p>T. O. Munger, District Judge, dissenting.</p> <p><gs5>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NXJMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>