Citation Numbers: 177 A. 430, 114 N.J.L. 468
Judges: LLOYD, J.
Filed Date: 3/9/1935
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The question involved on this appeal is whether the plaintiff owner of an automobile is, because of that fact alone, qualified to testify as an expert or to give opinion evidence as to the value of her car. The question was admitted in the trial court, the ruling excepted to, and an appeal from that ruling.
The general rule of qualification of a witness to testify as to values is that one so testifying shall have special knowledge of the subject-matter. Chief Justice Beasley, in the case ofPennsylvania, c., Railroad Co. v. Root,
We are referred to the case of Teets v. Hahn,
In the present case the woman plaintiff was employed as a stenographer. She owned the car, damage to which was the subject of the action; had owned two other automobiles and had been driving for four years. There was nothing herein to suggest that she had the slightest knowledge of the market value of an automobile before the accident, much less its value after a damaging accident and before repairs had been made. The questions eliciting replies as to such values were incompetent and should not have been permitted. While the qualifications of a witness are for the judge to pass upon, and where there is evidence of adequate qualification admission of such testimony will not be reversed in this court, it must appear, however, that there is qualifying evidence. In this case there was none.
The judgment is reversed. *Page 470