Claim of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.

272 A.D.2d 983

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 17, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 983 (Claim of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Bergman v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 272 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by claimants from a decision of the State Industrial Board disallowing the surviving widow benefits, and also disallowing a claim subsequent to November 2, 1925, on the ground that there is no causal relation between decedent’s injury and subsequent death. This ease 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 & Bailroad 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.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an appeal by claimants from a decision of the State Industrial Board disallowing the surviving widow benefits, and also disallowing a claim subsequent to November 2, 1925, on the ground that there is no causal relation between decedent’s injury and subsequent death. This ease 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 & Bailroad 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.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-bergman-v-mergenthaler-linotype-co-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack