Court Opinion

ID: 7069048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 07:30:05.236466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:12:31.694030
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion.
Dausman, J.:
— I concur; but I am of the further opinion that the matter involved in the hypothetical question is not a proper subject for expert testimony. See 17 Cyc 121; Storms v. Lemon (1893), 7 Ind. App. 435, 34 N. E. 644; Wahl v. Shoulders (1896), 14 Ind. App. 665, 43 N. E. 458; Boyd, Admr., v. Starbuck (1897), 18 Ind. App. 310, 47 N. E. 1079.