Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Misc. 49

Carpenter v. Leavitt

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided October 15, 1894

City of New York Municipal Court · decided 1894-10-15

<p>A question calling for the opinion of a witness as to the value of services rendered by the plaintiff as a medical expert and physician, as the witness has heard the plaintiff testify to them, is improper, as it permits the witness to assume for himself from such testimony the facts upon which he bases his opinion, without informing the jury what he believes those facts to be.</p>

Relies on People v. . McElvaine

Decided 1894-10-15

Ehrlich, Ch. J.

¶1The action was for services as a medical expert and physician, and one question litigated was whether the services were performed on the personal responsibility of the defendant, or on the credit of another for whom the defendant was acting.

¶2This was fairly submitted to the jury, and they found from the evidence that the promise of the defendant was made by him personally and on his own behalf.

¶3Another question in the case is the value of the plaintiff’s services, and on this subject the testimony is also conflicting.

¶4The plaintiff called Doctor Morehead in rebuttal and asked him this question:

¶5What do you say is the reasonable value of these services as you have heard Doctor Carpenter testify to them; examining a woman, making several examinations, going to other physicians and giving a history of the case, studying up the history and nature of the injuries preparatory to testifying as an expert, attending in court four days and testifying as an expert ? ”

¶6This evidence was objected to by the defendant upon the ground that it did not appear that the witness had heard the testimony of the plaintiff, and upon the further ground that it was incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

¶7The objection was overruled.

¶8We think this was error, for it permitted the witness to assume for himself, from the testimony of the plaintiff, the facts upon which he based his opinion, without informing the jury what he supposed or believed those facts to be. Connelly v. R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. Supp. 176; Uransky v. R. R. Co., 13 id. 670. See, also, People v. McElvaine, 121 N. Y. 250 ; People v. Smiler, 125 id. 717 ; Gregory v. R. R. Co., 28 N. Y. St. Repr. 726.

¶9This is rendered more objectionable by the fact that there was nothing in the case tending to show that the witness had heard the testimony of the plaintiff.

¶10*51For this reason the judgment appealed from must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

¶11Fitzsimons, J., concurs.

¶12Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

/10/misc/49 · .json · Public domain