Grant v. Dolley

2 Citing cases

  1. Parker v. Hohman

    250 A.2d 698 (Me. 1969)   Cited 21 times

    The appropriateness of admitting opinion testimony from a qualified expert as to matters within his field which are beyond the experience and training to be expected from members of the jury is too well established to require citation of authority. The qualification of the expert and the range of his opinion testimony are matters within the judicial discretion of the Presiding Justice. State v. Wardwell, 158 Me. 307, 183 A.2d 896 (1962); Grant v. Dolley, 131 Me. 500, 163 A. 85 (1932); 31 Am.Jur.2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence, Section 26. The opinion of the expert, however, must be based upon facts established by the evidence in the case to which sound scientific principles are applied. Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, Me., 235 A.2d 295 (1967). In recent years, the propriety of permitting the reconstruction of automobile accidents by qualified experts from physical evidence existing following the crash has been recognized by a number of jurisdictions.

  2. Torrey v. Congress Sq. Hotel Co.

    145 Me. 234 (Me. 1950)   Cited 20 times
    In Torrey v. Congress Square Hotel Co., 1950, 145 Me. 234, 75 A.2d 451, this Court said that it was not negligence per se to have a floor of two levels in a hotel cocktail lounge; so also in this case, it was not negligence per se not to provide locking devices on the half screens with which the motel rooms were equipped.

    " Perlin v. Rosen, 131 Me. 481, 483; Damren v. Trask, 102 Me. 39, 46. "Where the ruling is within the discretionary power of presiding justice, and there appears no abuse of such discretion the exception must be overruled." Grant v. Dolley, 131 Me. 500; Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co., 76 Me. 100. "Mere immateriality of evidence if admitted is not necessarily error. It may be, if the evidence is mischievous and calculated to mislead the jury." Dutch v. Granite Co., 94 Me. 34. "It is not enough for the excepting party to show that excluded evidence was legally admissible. He must show that its exclusion was prejudicial to him.