National Biscuit Co. v. Nolan
Citations
- 138 F. 6
- 70 C.C.A. 436
- 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 3757
Syllabus
<p>1. Expert Testimony.</p> <p>The issue on trial being whether the defendant was guilty of actionable negligence in not providing the plaintiff a reasonably safe place in which to work about machinery, it was not competent for the machinist, whose duty was to look after the machinery and see that it was in good running order, without more, to testify that in his opinion the machinery should have been safeguarded, as it usurped the province of the jury to determine such question of fact from all the evidence.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, § 2318.}</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The opinions of so-called experts are not received if all the facts can be ascertained and made intelligible to the jury, or if it is such as men in general are capable of comprehending and determining.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence,' §§ 2308, 2310.]</p> <p>3. Personal Injuries — Damages—Evidence.</p> <p>On trial to a jury, the plaintiff was permitted to testify that she depended upon herself for support. Held to be error, as such a rule would create a Shifting scale for measuring compensation for personal injuries, making it depend upon the pecuniary condition of the sufferer.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Damages, § 498.]</p> <p>4. Appeal — Prejudicial Error — Presumptions.</p> <p>Where improper evidence is received which might have had a tendency to unduly influence the minds of the jury, the presumption is that it was prejudicial, and the verdict should be set aside.</p> <p>5. Injury to Servant — Master to Furnish a Reasonably Sape Place to</p> <p>Work.</p> <p>This rule is always conditioned that the employer is only bound to ordinary and reasonable care, as applied to the circumstances under which the liability arises, to furnish a reasonably safe place and machinery, and so as not to impose upon the employer the burden of being held as an absolute insurer of the employé, or s
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that “[t]he likelihood of the plaintiffs’ success on the merits . . . is not relevant to the issue of whether certification is proper” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
- certifying Rule 23(c)(4) issue described as encompassing “liability issues of fault and comparative fault”
- finding argument that Rule 23(c)(4) requires predominance as to the entire case “not meritorious”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Devanter, Philips, Sanborn
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.