From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1947
272 App. Div. 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Opinion

September 17, 1947.

Appeal from State Industrial Board.


This case has been before this court on prior occasions. (See 263 App. Div. 911; 266 App. Div. 1049; 267 App. Div. 842.) An expert witness for the Special Fund was asked a hypothetical question which he answered. In his cross-examination it developed that his answer was not based on the hypothetical question but on many other matters which he took into consideration. The answer of the expert, therefore, is of no value here. An expert witness should be limited to questions which contain in themselves the facts assumed to be proved and upon which his opinion is based ( Cobb v. United Engineering Contr. Co., 191 N.Y. 475; Christastie v. Elmira Water, Light Railroad Co., 202 App. Div. 270). The opinion of the expert to be of any value must rest upon a sound hypothesis and, if it is without support in the evidence, it is without probative force. Decision reversed, with costs against the Workmen's Compensation Board, and matter remitted for further consideration. All concur. [See post, p. 1082.]


Summaries of

Matter of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 17, 1947
272 App. Div. 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)
Case details for

Matter of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of WILLIAM BERGMAN, Deceased, and ROSE BERGMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 17, 1947

Citations

272 App. Div. 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Citing Cases

Claim of Cumm v. Atlantic Cement Co.

In view of Dr. Pike's clear testimony that claimant did not suffer increased back pain, and the claimant's…

Dayton v. Harlene Frocks, Inc.

The expert's opinion constituted the crux of the whole case. It was the only testimony upon which a verdict…