Tunkieicz v. Libby, McNeill & Libby

The defendant, Libby, contends the trial court erred in permitting plaintiff’s witnesses to testify that the lima beans could have been harvested when they had no actual knowledge of the soil conditions and no hypothetical question of assumed facts of the record had been given to the witnesses. Libby also contends that without this testimony the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The most critical fact at issue in the case was the capability of the soil in the plaintiff’s field to carry the combines and tractors in the harvesting process. Libby’s fieldman testified that at no…