Knipp v. Mankin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant contends that the question of the percentage of disability is not a proper subject for opinion testimony by a medical expert; that by reason of their wide experience jurors are in a better position to estimate the extent that an injury will disable a person than are medical experts. “No Missouri case has been cited which deals with the question presented. However, in Ott v. Perrin, 116 Ind. App. 315 , 63 N.E.2d 163, 166 , it was held proper to permit a medical expert to express the opinion that the plaintiff ‘had lost from one-third to forty percent of his usefulness as the result of his injuries.’ Also, in Skelly Oil Co. v. Harrell, 187 Okl. 412 , 103 P.2d 88, 90 , expert testimony was held competent to the effect that ‘respondent has a 25 percent disability to his right leg and that this disability is permanent.’ In Missouri the courts have held that an expert may express the opinion that an injury is permanent, Mahany v. Kansas City Rys. Co., 286 Mo. 601 , 228 S.W. 821 , and that the plaintiff is totally disabled. Stearns v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 235 Mo.App. 135 , 140 S.W.2d 766 . If it is proper for an expert to express the opinion that a person is totally disabled it would seem proper to permit expert testimony that he has sustained a percentage of disability. We have been unable to think of any logical reason why a qualified medical expert should not be permitted to express the opinion that a person has sustained a certain percentage of disability i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rodenberg Ex Rel. Rodenberg v. Nickels