Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Date | 28 November 1952 |
| Court | Court of Session |
1ST DIVISION.
Lord Strachan.
Evidence—Sufficiency—Parole evidence—Opinion evidence of scientific expert—Value of such evidence—Whether corroboration necessary—Whether Court bound to accept expert's uncontradicted opinion.
Evidence—Competency—Written evidence—Expert witness referring to scientific pamphlet—How far Court entitled to consider parts of pamphlet not referred to by witness.
During the construction of a sewer a number of dwelling-houses received damage which their owners attributed to blasting operations associated with the work of construction. At the proof in an action for reparation, brought by one of these owners, the pursuer adduced no scientific opinion evidence regarding the effects of explosions on adjacent buildings, whereas the defenders adduced the evidence of three expert witnesses in regard to that matter. One, who had made researches into the effect of blasting on nearby buildings, gave evidence to the effect that the explosives used could not possibly in the circumstances have caused the damage complained of. The second expert was taken as concurring in chief and in cross with the first, but he was cross-examined in regard to his qualification to give such evidence. The third expert gave evidence different from and in material respects contradictory of that of the first expert. The first expert in cross-examination referred to certain pages of a scientific pamphlet in support of his views, and in re-examination he was again referred to this pamphlet.
The Lord Ordinary having rejected the expert opinion evidence and awarded damages, and having founded his judgment on, inter alia, passages in the pamphlet which had not been referred to by or put to the witness, the defenders reclaimed and contended (1) that, as the pursuer had led no expert evidence to counter the evidence of their first expert, the Court was bound to accept his evidence; (2) that the conflicting evidence of their third expert should be ignored; and (3) that the Lord Ordinary was not entitled to have regard to parts of the scientific pamphlet which had not been referred to in evidence. It was contended for the pursuer that the evidence of the first expert was uncorroborated, as the second expert who had concurred with him was not qualified to express a reliable opinion.
Held (1) that in the case of expert opinion evidence formal corroboration was not required in the same way as for proof of an essential fact, but that the Court was not bound to accept the conclusions of an expert witness even when uncontradicted, and (2) that, although the Lord Ordinary was not entitled to rely on passages in the scientific pamphlet except in so far as adopted by the witness and made part of his evidence or put to him in cross-examination, his judgment should be affirmed.
Observations on the weight and value to be given to the opinions of expert scientific witnesses.
(See previous report-1951 S. C. 720.)
James Pennycook Davie brought an action against the Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh, in which he claimed reparation for damage done to his house by blasting operations associated with the construction of a sewer tunnel some three hundred yards from the house. The pursuer's averments are quoted in the previous report, and, after the procedure there narrated, a proof was heard by Lord Strachan. Before the proof the pursuer amended his averments of damage with the effect of reducing the sum sued for to £831, 16s.
The import of the proof, so far as material to the present report, was as follows:—
At advising on 28th November 1952 (when Lord Keith was absent),—
LORD PRESIDENT (Cooper).—I refer to the opinions delivered when this case and a number of related actions were formerly before us.3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donegal Investment Group Plc v Danbywiske, Wilson
...expert views given in evidence. There is long standing support for that view in the Scottish judgment in Davie v. Magistrates of Edinburgh [1953] SC 34 where it was held that a court is not bound to accept the conclusions of an expert witness even when contradicted. It logically follows tha......
-
Island Hoppers Helicopter Tours Ltd v MBJ Airports Ltd
...engineering field. He will not be able to meet the criteria as laid down by Lord President Cooper inDAVIE v EDINBURGH MAGISTRATES [1953] SC 34 [1953] SC 34 at page 40 that is to ‘…furnish the judge … with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions, so as......
-
Jordan v Russell
...that the Crown analysis truly reflected the alcohol content of the pannel's blood; and appeal refused. Davie v Magistrates of EdinburghSC 1953 SC 34(dictum of Lord President Cooper at p 40) applied. Timothy Richard Jordan was charged in the sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife at Cupar a......
-
Khouly Construction & Engineering Ltd v Edmond Mansoor
...assertion or “bare ipse dixit” carries little weight, as the Lord President (Cooper) famously stated in Davie v Magistrates of Edingburgh 1953 SC 34, 40. If anything, the suggestion that an unsubstantiated ipse dixit carries little weight is understated; in our view such evidence is worthle......
-
Table of Cases
...175 Davie v. he Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh, [1953] S.C. 34 ......................................................................36, 37 Davies and Cody v. he King (1937), 57 C.L.R. 170, [1937] HCA 27 ...................... 137, 154 De Jesus v. he Quee......
-
Legal versus non-legal approaches to forensic science evidence
...to reliability in English jurisprudence, and inattention to similar requirements in cases following Davie vMagistrates of Edinburgh (1953) SC 34, it seems unlikely that these refinements will be sufficient to prevent weak, speculativeand unreliable opinions being admitted in criminal procee......
-
Case Comments: Some judicial guidelines for establishing the value of immovable property in friendly sequestrations
...not an oracular pronouncement by an expert' (James Pennycook Davie v The Lord Provost, Magistrates and Councillors of the City of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34 at 40, quoted in Cross & Tapper op cit at 557n4). In Australia it has been pointed out that the testimony of an able and articulate expert m......
-
FACIAL RECOGNITION AND IMAGE COMPARISON EVIDENCE: IDENTIFICATION BY INVESTIGATORS, FAMILIARS, EXPERTS, SUPER-RECOGNISERS AND ALGORITHMS.
...of an opinion, see Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, 730-3 [60]-[69] (Heydon JA); Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh 1953 SC 34, 40 (Lord President (117) Indeed, a different court might have made more of the professor's comparative anthropological research or experien......