Court Opinion

ID: 9789808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:41:40.748057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:24.487967
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Justice
(dissenting).
Defendant, appealing, says the trial court made serious errors, (1), in overruling defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, and its motion for a new trial; (2), in *1060admitting opinion evidence of a janitress as an alleged expert without proof of the facts upon which such opinion testimony-might properly be based; (3), in inferentially advising the jury she was an “expert” by instructing as to consideration of the evidence of expert, witnesses; in instructing-the'jury as to consideration, of such matters as plaintiff’s “earning capacity” and other matters . when neither such nor her life expectancy had been mentioned in plaintiff’s proof, and, (4), in failing to instruct the jury on’ material issues, in failing to instruct the jury that plaintiff was limited to the charge of negligence alleged in the pétition, and in failing to instruct on defendant’s theory of the case.
With reference to defendant’s second proposition, the argument is made that the witness Carter was asked, “Q. — and if they didn’t get it all up, what would be the condition of that spot that they didn’t get up after two weeks, from the experience you have had?”, and that she was permitted to answer over objection, “A. Well, we usually taken care of our floor and we never had that trouble. But naturally, if oil would stay on the floor, which it has got an oily substance, and if it would stay on the floor, it would be slippery; but we just never did— we usually always cleaned our floors; and that way we just never had any trouble with - it.” Further argument of similar tenor with reference to similar evidence is advanced.
I believe defendant’s position is well taken. The trial court admitted such testimony from the named witness, who was testifying out of order, with the understanding further testimony (presumably tending to establish that someone of defendant’s employees left an excess of oil or waxy substances on the floor) would be adduced. Such evidence was not forthcoming.
In 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 552, p. 359, appears the statement that, “As a rule hypothetical questions must be based on facts as to which there is such evidence that a jury might reasonably find they are established * * * .”
As was said by this court in the case of Mead Bros., Inc., v. Watts, 135 Okl. 23, 273 P. 207:
“Hypothetical questions must be based upon facts as to which there is such evidence that a jury might reasonably find that they are established
In Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oliphant, 172 Old. 635, 45 P.2d 1077, we said almost identically the same thing. See also syllabus paragraph 4 of Cities Service Gas Co. v. Eggers, 186 Okl. 466, 98 P.2d 1114, 1115, 126 A.L.R. 1278, wherein we said:
“When attempting to establish damages caused to a tract of land by the tortious acts of the defendant, it is error to assume, in a hypothetical question, material facts alleged but not theretofore established by competent evidence, but if on cross-examination the hypothetical question is properly stated, the error is cured.”
No cure was effected in the trial of this case. As the facts assumed for the purpose of the purported expert witness’ testimony went to the very foundation of plaintiff’s case and as no evidence of such facts was introduced, it appears the jury could have been actuated, in arriving at its verdict, only by belief in the actuality of the facts assumed, for purposes of her testimony, to exist but never proven.
To my mind defendant has shown itself entitled to a new trial. As in such a new trial other alleged errors complained of would probably not again occur, further treatment of defendant’s other propositions in this dissenting opinion is not deemed necessary.
I respectfully dissent.