Aston v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jefferson Cycuit Court. — Son. Frank B. Bearing, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting the opinions of plaintiff’s several witnesses as to the rate of speed. Not one of them had ever made any observations as to the rate of speed of ears, and could therefore form ho judgment on the subject. Without making such observations, they had not the knowledge which entitled them to express an opinion as to the rate of speed. Muth v. Railroad, 87 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Cycuit Court. — Son. Frank B. Bearing, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting the opinions of plaintiff’s several witnesses as to the rate of speed. Not one of them had ever made any observations as to the rate of speed of ears, and could therefore form ho judgment on the subject. Without making such observations, they had not the knowledge which entitled them to express an opinion as to the rate of speed. Muth v. Railroad, 87 Mo. App. 434. (2) The court erred in giving each of the instructions for the plaintiff. The plaintiff having alleged specific acts of negligence,…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts as above).
—1. T!he first point made by appellant, is that the; trial court erred in admitting the opinions of witnesses, *231introduced by plaintiff as to the rate of speed attained by defendant’s car. That the velocity of a car or a train in motion, propelled by electric or steam power does not require to be established by the testimony of experts, is now fixed beyond reasonable question. No technical knowledge is essential to form an opinion upon such subject, nor does it involve any scientific question to be answered only by a skilled witness, but it relates to a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Van SteinburgMichigan Supreme Court · 1868
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Feary v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Chitty v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Furnish v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1890
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Tinkle v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Flach v. BallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922
- Hall v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Delo v. Old Dominion Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Kleckamp Ex Rel. Kleckamp v. LautenschlaegerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.