Kuhn v. Ligonier Valley Railroad

Citations

• 255 Pa. 445
• 100 A. 142
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 472

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Witnesses—Expert testimony — Admissibility.</p> <p>1. As necessity is the ground of admissibility of expert testimony, the moment the necessity ceases, the exception to the general rule that requires of a witness facts and not opinions, ceases also. Hence, whenever the circumstances can be fully and adequately described to the jury, and are such that their bearing on the issues can be estimated by all men, without special knowledge or training, opinions of witnesses, expert or other, are not admissible.</p> <p>2. In a suit by an engineer to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the collision of his train and another train, where the single question of fact involved was whether a verbal order required plaintiff to hold the train or to proceed, it was error to permit an expert to testify that, in the operation of trains, written orders are safer than verbal ones.</p> <p>3. Such expert evidence was not only inadmissible, but it was calculated to mislead, as it carried an implied suggestion to the jury that, although plaintiff received a definite order to hold his train, yet because that order was not in writing, they were at liberty to find that plaintiff was excusable if he obeyed the order.</p> <p>Evidence — Objection—Appeal.</p> <p>4. Where it is uncertain from the record whether any reason was stated for objection to the admission of evidence, the consideration of the case on appeal will not be limited to any particular ground of objection, as it would be, if particular ground had been specified when the evidence was admitted.</p>