Personal Injuries — Opinion Evidence — Obstacle in Highway — Skid Marks.
A statement by plaintiff, suing for personal injuries, that he was "a whole lot" more nervous since the accident, was not the expression of an opinion, but a statement of fact, and was consequently admissible.
A physician who had previously attended plaintiff, and treated him two days after the accident and until his wounds were healed, could express an opinion as to the probability that the accident was the cause of the physical difference which he noted in plaintiff's condition.
In an action against a highway contractor for injuries caused by his leaving a road machine left by him in the highway without a light, held that evidence as to skid marks in front of the machine on the third day after the accident was inadmissible, in the absence of evidence that the conditions then were the same as at the time of the accident, and that no other automobile had been there.
It is a matter in the discretion of the trial court whether to allow a witness called in rebuttal to answer a question which should have been offered in direct evidence.
Decided November 14th, 1933.
SLOAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Unreported Cases.