majority"> Per Curiam.

Tbe defendant offered the testimony of a witness who was the foreman in charge of the work of constructing the dam. He testified in detail as to the construction of the dam, and tbat on the day after the break be examined it. Thereupon be was asked if be bad an opinion, satisfactory to himself, as'to the cause of the break, and replying in the affirmative, stated tbat the break was caused by some “manner of explosion.” Tbe witness further testified as to the facts observable in and about the broken dam upon which bis opinion was based. Tbe plaintiff objected to the testimony, and assigned the admission thereof by the trial judge, for error. This testimony is within *696 the principle approved in Britt v. R. R., 148 N. C., 37, 61 S. E., 601, as follows: “The exception to the general rule that witnesses cannot give opinions is not confined to the evidence of experts testifying on subjects requiring special knowledge, skill or learning, but it includes the evidence of common observers testifying the results of their observations made at the time in regard to common appearances, facts and conditions which cannot be reproduced and made palpable to a jury.” This statement of law was approved in Marshall v. Tel. Co., 181 N. C., 292, 106 S. E., 818.

The merits of the controversy involve an issue of fact, and the verdict is determinative.

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress