James Haggerty, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City and Newtown Railroad Company, Appellant

James Haggerty, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City and Newtown Railroad Company, Appellant. (Argued May 21, 1874; decided September term, 1874.) This was an action to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been occasioned by defendant’s negligence. Plaintiff, in crossing a street, was run over by one of defendant’s cars and injured. Upon the trial several witnesses called by defendant, who saw the accident, were asked, in substance, their opinion, after having seen the accident, if any thing could have been done by the conductor to prevent the accident. This was excluded, under objection. Held, no error; that the questions called for opinions for which no foundation was Jaid by showing that the witnesses were experts, but that the question was not proper to an expert, as it did not call for an opinion derived from the testimony or the general knowledge of the witness, but simply from what he saw at the time of the occurrence. The court stated that the advantage of the usual hypothetical question to experts, including the substance of the whole testimony, is so great that it should only be sacrificed when the circumstances plainly call- for it, citing Sills v. Brown (9 C. & P., 601); 1 Greenlf. on Ev., § 440; People v. Lake (12 N. Y., 358); Commonwealth v. Rogers (7 Mete., 505); 1 M. & R., 75. Various exceptions to findings of fact were disposed of upon the evidence or upon the ground that the findings were immaterial. Amasa J. Parker for the appellant. Nathaniel C. Moak for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Dwight, C.,] Dwight, C., reads for affirmance. All concur. Judgment affirmed.