Court Opinion

ID: 9586801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:15:20.554842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:52.363836
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Hall, Judge.
In its motion for rehearing the defendant contends that the case of Central R. Co. v. Mitchell, 63 Ga. 173, is controlling authority and requires a different ruling in Division 1 of the opinion. This case at page 180 states: “The expert was competent to testify. Every expert derives much of his knowledge from books as well as from experience, and can give his opinion based upon the knowledge acquired from both sources.” This holding applied to the testimony of a civil engineer who had surveyed railroads, and who had surveyed the railroad in question at the place of the accident, and gave "a considerable amount of evidence as to the depth, width, etc., of *539the cut” and the character of soil in and above the ditch, and the effect of water running on such a place. He testified that, according to the rules of civil engineering certain kinds of soil, materials, slopes, and supports were used for railroad cuts and embankments, and what slope the cut in question should have had; and that he recollected such rules from books on engineering which he named. There was an objection to the testimony as to what the authorities give as the rules for construction of walls of cuts, on the ground that it was not original but hearsay evidence.
■ This was a case of the expert applying his knowledge of engineering theory and principles learned from books and experience to a set of facts he had observed. This expert’s opinion was based on observed facts to which he applied professional knowledge. No unobserved facts were put in evidence. This is the character of'most expert opinion evidence. The expert’s opinion in the present case was based on hearsay facts to which he applied professional knowledge and experience. His testimony indicates that his factual data were a matter of public record,' but no such record was put in evidence.
While defendant’s motion and the authorities cited therein contain persuasive argument, the Georgia authorities are not in accord with them.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.