Court Opinion

ID: 9734033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:23:26.30159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:46:29.938943
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
Upon a reconsideration of the issues in this case on petition for rehearing I have reached the conclusion that the opinion filed by the court herein is not correct. The principal issue of fact in this case was whether the collision between the defendant and the plaintiff occurred upon the north or the south half of an east and west highway. The question as to which party was negligent was to a great extent dependent upon how that issue of fact was decided. The witness Fisher, who saw the collision from a point 150 to 200 yards from the highway was the only disinterested person who saw the collision.
During the trial the trial judge took over the examination of the witness Fisher and after some preliminary questions and answers the following appears of record:
“The Court: And upon what part of the road did it happen, the collision happen? A. You mean just from the center of the road?
“Q. Yes, sir, I want to know where it happened, in the middle or — A. I would *454say it happened upon the south side of the road, according to where McDougald’s track had started to turn out, and up about twenty to twenty-five, thirty feet west of the approach is where the impact took place.
“The Court: And now you are testifying as to what you saw ?
“Mr. Conmy: One moment, I want to move that the last answer be stricken as an opinion without foundation, as a conclusion without proper foundation; as readily the subject of expert testimony, not properly the subject of expert testimony, and without the qualifications of the witness being established as an expert.
“Mr. Lanier: If the court please, he has just testified as to what he saw.
“The Court: The first time it required an expert to tell what he saw. You may answer.”
The trial judge’s ruling, “You may answer,” was not directly responsive to the motion to strike. It was, however, given as a ruling on the motion and can only be construed as a meaning, “Let the answer stand”, as there was no unanswered question pending at the time.
I think that it is apparent upon the record that the challenged answer, in so far as it was responsive at all, was a conclusion which the witness had deduced from tracks he had seen upon the highway. He said, “I would say it happened upon the south-side of the highway, according to where McDougald’s tracks had started to turn out.” The language, “I would say” and “according to”, clearly marks the answer as a conclusion. The leading question, “And you are now testifying as to what you saw?” which was thereafter propounded by the trial judge could not have been answered in the affirmative unless the witness misunderstood the meaning of the question. In any event it was not answered by the witness. The trial judge apparently decided to accept the statement made by the attorney for party to whom the challenged answer was favorable, as a basis for overruling the motion to strike. He also coupled with his ruling a statement which would indicate to everyone in the court room, including the jury, that the attorney for the defendant should have known better than to make the objection in the first place.
I think it was error to deny the motion to strike. Kohler v. Stephens, 74 N.D. 655, 24 N.W.2d 64. I think also that the error was prejudicial because the issue upon which the testimony was given was one of the most important in the case and the witness who gave it was a disinterested witness. It is my opinion that a new trial should be granted.