Southern Cement Company, Division of Martin-Marietta Corporation v. Zemma Lowery Sproul and Matthew Sproul, Jr.
378 F.2d 48
5th Cir.
1967
Check Treatment

*2 GODBOLD,Cir- Before WISDOM Judge. McRAE, Judges, Judge: GODBOLD,Circuit appeal from verdicts This is an arising damages loss plaintiffs for consequence as a in their wells of water mining de- operations affirm. Alabama. We fendants erred Appellant claims the allowing toWood witness expe practical expert. had Wood many years, mining includ rience superintendent ing experience mine as a however, not, blasting; had he in mine or worked mined limestone As a here. as that involved same size may rule, person become “[A] by practical ex expert qualified an * educa perience. *. Professional prerequisite.” Ma Santana is not a McHale, Service, F.2d rine (5th Cir., 1965). 147,148 The trial admission discretion has broad including evidence, exclusion expert, qualification of offered (1919); Karpeles City Ice on 541 Deliv- be sustained and appeal decision must (1917). “manifestly ery So. 642 unless erroneous.” Lines, 370 U.S. Salem 81, (1962); L.Ed.2d 313 82 S.Ct. McHale, Service, Inc. v. Santana Marine ORDER DENYING PETITION *3 Airlines, supra; Ameri- Eastern FOR REHEARING Cir., Cyanamid can 1963). Appellant PER CURIAM: Appellant dispute these does application filed has claims rules but setting rehearing, prerogative, as is its legal applied erroneous standards quotation to out attributed Charles experi- prior of nature and extent of Hughes, Evans written in interim be- required qualify ence testify, the witness to to his tween two terms of on citing Bird, service Roth v. Supreme Court: “Petitions for rehear- (5th. 1963). In Roth the lower ing improvement are an on tavern experienced ship’s to refused allow an may enjoy telling luxury of counsel testify proper master of method thought loading the court face showing to its what is a vessel without a opinion.” he had loaded the vessel one almost exactly reversed, like it. This Court hold- prerogative, duty, study is our It objections weight went to rather application adjudge and consider the admissibility than and that the standard it whether has merit or whether it is a applied by the trial strict too enjoyment luxury mere described and unrealistic. Thus Roth abun- makes Hughes. by Justice done have so. dantly clear there was no error application The is overruled. present Airlines, case. See also Eastern Inc., supra, pilot experienced where a

flying military prop- aircraft was held

erly qualified flight procedures;

relation to commercial experience flying

his lack commer- weight cial aircraft “went to his ’*'*

testimony, and not to its admis-

sibility.” 321 F.2d at 691-692. WADE, Appellee, Noah William testimony blasting Wood’s employed methods and of defendant PEYTON, Superintendent C. C. of the Vir- earth, their effect on the and of ef ginia Penitentiary, Appellant. State fect of available alternative methods em No. 11110. ployed by majority companies, plus evidence known structure United States Court of previous strata and ex Fourth Circuit. perience of the defendant with influx of 3, Argued April mine, water sufficiently present into the 29, May Decided jury question. ed a There was no error refusing defendant’s motion for a di judgment rected verdict and n. o. v. charge, The while terse somewhat regard, adequately

in this stated meaning proximate cause under Ala Aggregate

bama law. Co. Limestone Robinson, 338, 820, 276 Ala. 161 So.2d (1964); Birmingham Southern R. Harrison, 82 So.