Normally, opinions of ordinary persons, i.e., non-experts are not relevant. Such persons are liable to err, and their impressions may be superfluous. Further, different persons are likely to form different impressions from the same set of facts. However, the general rule has certain exceptions, and in certain cases, the opinion of an ordinary witness is admitted by the Court.
Image Source: tcf.org
“The ground upon which opinions are admitted in such cases is that, from the very nature of the subject in issue, it cannot be stated or described in such language as will enable persons, not eye-witnesses, to form an accurate judgment in regard to it. How can a witness describe the weight of a horse? Or his strength? Or his value?” (Foster, C.J.)
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Judicial decisions show that opinions of non-experts have been received, inter alia, as regards—
(i) The disposition or temper of animals (Sydleman v. Beckwith);
(ii) Matters of colour, weight, state of similar facts (Bass Furnace Co. v. Glasscock);
(iii) The age of person (Bell v. Bearman);
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iv) That a man and woman were intimate (S. v. Match); or that two persons who are on a bed seemed to have sexual intercourse (Bizer v. Bizer); and
(v) That a person was intoxicated (Harbison v. Lemon).