United States Smelting Co. v. Parry

Citations

• 166 F. 407
• 92 C.C.A. 159
• 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4289

Syllabus

<p>1. Master and Servant (§ 235*) —- Master’s Ditty in Respect op Servant's Working Peace — -Servant’s Right to Assume That Master’s Duty has been Performed — Exception.</p> <p>It is the duty of a master to exercise reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe working place for his servant, and the latter is entitled to act upon the assumption that that duty has been performed, unless the contrary be known to him, or be so patent as to be readily observed by him. He is not required to make an investigation or inspection, to ascertain whether or not that duty has been performed, but only to have due regard for what he actually knows and for what is so patent as to be readily observed by him by the reasonable use of his senses, having in view his age, intelligence, and experience.</p> <p>I Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 713; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]</p> <p>2. Evidence (§ 474*) — Expert and Opinion Testimony — Test of Admissibility.</p> <p>The general rule that witnesses are permitted to testify to the primary facts within their knowledge, but not to their opinions, is subject to the important qualification that witnesses possessed of special training, experience, or observation in respect of the matter under investigation may testify to their opinions, when that will tend to aid the jury in reaching a correct conclusion ; the true test being, not the total dependence of the jury upon such testimony, but their inability to judge for themselves as well as is the witness.</p> <p>[I5d. Note. — For other cases, see Evidence, Cent Dig. § 219G; Dec. Dig. § 474.*]</p> <p>3. Appeal and Error (§ 970*) — Expert and Opinion Testimony — Discretion of Trial Judge.</p> <p>A certain discretion is accorded the trial judge in respect of the admission or rejection of export and opinion testimony, and his decision admitting testimony of that character ought not to be disturbed, unless it plainly appears that the testimony was not calculated to aid the jury in