Hoener v. Koch

Citations

• 84 Ill. 408

Syllabus

<p>- 1. Evidence—witness can not testify to conclusion of law. Where two parties are sued as joint tort feasors, and a default is taken against one, and the other pleads not guilty, it is not competent to permit the one in default to testify that he alone is responsible for the alleged tort.</p> <p>2. Same—experts not allowed to give opinions as to the question the jury are to decide. In a suit against a surgeon for malpractice, it is proper for an expert to give his opinion as to whether the treatment the evidence shows the plaintiff to have received was proper or not; but it is error to permit him to give his opinion as to whether, from all the evidence in the case, the defendant was guilty of malpractice or not, that being the very . question the jury are to try and determine for themselves.</p> <p>3. Same—preponderance, sufficient in actions for tort. In a suit against a surgeon for malpractice, the plaintiff is not required to prove the charge by evidence sufficient to produce a clear conviction in the minds of the jury, as this is equivalent to requiring them to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, of the truth of the charge. It is sufficient, in such cases, if the evidence preponderates in favor of the plaintiff.</p>