Cited by

4 See, Johnson v. Agerbeck, 247 Minn. 432 , 77 N. W. (2d) 539 ; Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 145 Minn. 100 , ; Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

In the case of Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146, 148 , , this court said: “* * * The ordinary function of experts is to assist the jury, by their superior knowledge, in reaching a correct conclusion from the facts in testimony before them.

But if you find it entitled to weight-you will give it such weight in your deliberations as you feel it is justly entitled to.” The part relative to the opinion evidence follows the rules laid down in Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , ; Boyd v. City of Duluth, 126 Minn. 33 , ; Whitney v. Kaliske, 131 Minn. 261 , ; Remington v. Savage, 148 Minn. 405 , ; Head v. Hargrave, 105 U. S. 45 , 26 L. ed. 1028; The Conqueror, 166 U. S. 110 , 17 Sup.

*64 When instructing the jury on the subject of damages, the court said the testimony given by the physicians was “entitled to considerable weight.” Citing Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , , defendants assert that this was error.

For example a nonprofessional observer may not ordinarily diagnose disease, Martin v. Courtney, 87 Minn. 197, 203 , ; the standards of practice in different schools of medicine must be established by the testimony of experts of those schools, Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255 , ; and generally with respect to matters of science or specialized art, Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , , or with respect to matters resting upon pure theory, judgment, and opinion, based upon reasons familiar only to exp

Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , ; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. supra, page 100, .

Moratsky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

esses, based upon an assumed state of facts, and not upon a direct knowledge of the facts, “unless it comports and agrees with your common sense and is consistent with the facts proven in the case, as such facts are determined by you from a fair preponderance of all of the evidence in the case,” the court went no further in point of substance than did the charge of the court in Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , , where the instructions were held not error.

Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , ; Continental Ins.

Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .

Its charge that the testimony of the experts was not binding on the jury was correct, within Moratzky v. Wirth, 74 Minn. 146 , .