Court Opinion

ID: 9534519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:40:32.602745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:09.332455
License: Public Domain

ME. JUSTICE ADAIE
dissenting.
The appellant in the instant case cited and relied upon this court’s ruling in the recent case of O’Brien v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 145 Mont. 13, 400 P.2d 634, decided January 25, 1965, wherein this court held that it was reversible error in the dis*165trict court to permit the plaintiffs’ witness, John Garland, a thoroughly trained and experienced Montana Highway Patrolman, serving in that capacity continuously in the Chinook, Montana, area for some sixteen years, and who arrived at the scene of the accident within five minutes after the happening of the collision, and who immediately upon his arrival at the scene, thoroughly and methodically investigated each and every available detail of the accident, and who is by reason of his long service, training and experience an expert witness, to testify that after his thorough survey of the scene of the accident wherein O’Brien, the driver of the automobile who there lost his life, that “in my own mind I don’t think the man was exceeding the speed limit.”
In my opinion the trial judge was within his authority and right in permitting the expert witness, Highway Patrolman Garland, to answer the interrogatories so put to him, and that in so ruling the trial judge in the O’Brien case did not commit reversible error in permitting such expert to so testify.
To the majority opinion in the O’Brien case, supra, this writer dissented to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the O’Brien case, supra, wherein a majority of the members of this court held that “it was unduly prejudicial to the appellant’s ease and therefore reversible error to admit it.”
The appellant in the instant case of Boehler v. Sanders had the right to cite and rely upon this court’s ruling in the case of O’Brien v. Great Northern Ry. Co., supra, until such time as this court should change the rule which is therein announced.
In my opinion the expert witness, Montana Highway Patrolman John Garland was entitled to testify as he did, but nonetheless this court held that in so doing he committed prejudicial error.
It follows that until the ruling in the O’Brien case, supra,, has been changed or discarded that our courts and attorneys, have a right to cite and rely upon such ruling, as did counsel for the appellant in the instant case of Boehler v. Sanders.
*166In view of the foregoing I respectfully dissent to this court’s ruling that District Judge Elwell in the O’Brien case committed reversible error in permitting Montana Highway Patrolman John Garland to testify as an expert and that District Judge Stewart, presiding in the instant case of Boehler v. Sanders committed no reversible error in permitting the two Anaconda Police Officers, neither of whom was an eyewitness to the accident, to qualify as experts in traffic matters and to give an opinion based on the facts to which they testified.
In my opinion the rule announced by this court in the O’Brien case should be controlling in the instant ease and in like cases until this court sees fit to reverse and abandon the rule resorted to and announced in the O’Brien case.
The judges and attorneys of this state are entitled to know which of the two rules is the correct rule.