Court Opinion

ID: 9807871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:18:23.80736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:55.566920
License: Public Domain

ClaeksoN, J.,
concurring in result: It was in evidence that the witness, Mrs. C. J. Jordan, was asked if she had an opinion satisfactory to herself as to what caused the death of her son, and if so, what it was. Objections to these questions were sustained, and such ruling is assigned as error by the appellant. It appears from the record that if the witness had been permitted to answer she would have stated that she had such an opinion, and it was that the death of her son “was caused from the injury received when the automobile collided with the wagon. It hurt his chest and affected his heart in such way that I could tell it was the same condition that was produced by the injury that continued to grow worse until he died from it. He was able to work and to eat, play and sleep before, his injuries. He was not able to do either after that and ate very little and got to the place he could not eat anything hardly.” This was the testimony of the mother who watched the condition of her son from the time of his injury until his death. I concur in the view that there was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury, but do not agree that the evidence of the opinion of Mrs. Jordan was incompetent.
In 20 American Jurisprudence, under the head of Evidence, part sec. 859, pp. 719-720, is the following: “Nonexpert. — The opinions of lay or nonexpert witnesses who are familiar with a person whose physical condition is in question and have had opportunity for observing him are competent evidence on issues concerning the general health, strength, and the bodily vigor of such person, his feebleness or apparent illness, or changes in his apparent state of health or physical condition from one *392time to another, lay witnesses have been permitted to testify that a person looked bad, that he looked feeble, that he was lame or could scarcely walk, that he appeared to be very sick, and that he was so ill as to be beyond asking anything or in a condition to know anything.” Farming Co. v. R. R., 189 N. C., 63 (69); Street v. Coal Co., 196 N. C., 178 (183); McCord v. Harrison-Wright Co., 198 N. C., 742 (745-6); Keller v. Furniture Co., 199 N. C., 413 (417); Teseneer v. Mills Co., 209 N. C., 615 (622); Pack v. Katzin, 215 N. C., 233 (235). The evidence was competent, the probative force was for the jury.