LOPEZ vs. HEESEN

 "I love you as certain dark things are to be loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul."

- Pablo Neruda, 100 Love Sonnets 

The Thought..

Frederick Forsyth, in his book 'The Day of the Jackal' wrote an interesting conversation between two of his characters. It's a conversation between the gunsmith and the assassin him self:

The Gunsmith:  Over what range will you fire?
The Jackal:  I'm not sure yet but probably not more than 400 feet
The Gunsmith:  Will the gentleman be moving?
The Jackal:  Stationary.
The Gunsmith:  Will you go for a head shot or a chest shot?
The Jackal:  Probably head.
The Gunsmith:  What about the chance of a second shot?
The Jackal:  Well I might get the chance but I doubt it. In any event I'll need a silencer to escape.
The Gunsmith:  In that case you'd better have explosive bullets. I can prepare a handful along with the gun.
The Jackal:  Glycerin or mercury?
The Gunsmith:  Mercury... much cleaner.

Excerpt from the 1971 Best Selling Novel by the English writer Frededick Forsyth “The Day of the Jackal”. The book he wrote before The Odessa File, and The Fourth Protocol. Nope, I only read the Jackal.  The novel received admiring reviews and praise and bagged the Best Novel Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America. The novel remains popular, and in 2003 it was listed on the BBC's survey as one of every gentleman’s big read.

It’s about this professional hitman contracted to assassinate the President of France Charles de Gaulle. (I think I read it when I was… a young college freshman)

Notice the conversation between the gunsmith and the assassin? Simple conversation but you can outright tell both gentlemen put a premium on one’s intelligence as both are accustomed to operate on a detached and a minimized level of interaction.

See how quick there was a meeting of both minds? My grandpa once told me “Intelligent conversations are but fleeting” I never knew what it meant until I grew old.

Sometimes intelligent conversations are like that. Short but sweet so to speak. Brevity is indeed the soul of wit. Fleeting, because there’s nothing more to explain. Why? Because it was clearly understood from the very beginning. Never listened to but felt. It’s like the above excerpt, two experts conversing. One is a gun expert, the other a human expert. One on the craft itself, the other in his own craft of killing.  Tsk tsk tsk.. I’m such a wordsmith. But you know sometimes when it comes to women, I think the unspoken conversations of the mind is sexier than the conversation itself.

You know I think my grandfather is right. Intelligent conversations are indeed short but vital. Sometimes I compare them to a poem, the shortest literary work of communication. And I compare poems to bullets. The brevity of its lines shoot straight quicker than a paragraph. Some say it’s the shortest weapon in the world there is, likened to that of a bullet projectiled from a barrel of a gun. Even the great poet Pablo Neruda said ‘Poems are like bullets that explode in the mind’.  

The Case..

Sears Roebuck was ah.. engaged in designing, manufacturing and selling of hunting fire arms. (galing ko ba sa segue?)   Sears designed, manufactured and sold the Higgins Model 51 Hunting Rifle (click it) in around year 1958. The thing about this model is its design has a defect.

Oh by the way this is another US case, just in case. Mind you, this is not a US Case decided by the Philippine Supreme Court. It was decided by US courts. Blame it on PHIL REPORTS. I remember how we love hunting down the case in PHIL REPORTS back in my freshmen year, just for the simple reason that 1. it’s usually a US case, 2. It’s usually an old case and 3. old case US decisions were usually written short and therefore lessens our reading ordeal compared to the SCRA cases. And here's the good thing about PHIL REPORTS, it included cases as I've said decided by the US Supreme Court. My hunch is there weren't much crime committed then. Iba yung mga tao noon, di katulad ngayon. I presume that during the US Commissions in the 1950's  like the Taft and the Jones Commissions the Philippine justice system was at it's infant stage, and so courts lack ample jurisprudence... 

So.. moving right along, the thing with this Higgins rifle Sears Roebuck manufactured is that it was negligently designed. In fact its safety device was considered unsafe and dangerous among gun enthusiasts.

Facts of the case states that appellant Jesse Lopez filed suit against appellee  Robert Heesen alleging that one fateful day of Ocotober of 1958 Heesen assaulted and shot appellant Lopez with a shotgun thereby inflicting dangerous and painful wounds and injuries to appellant all to his damage in the total sum of $80.000. Heesen denied the allegation of the complaint and demanded for a jury trial. And in this trial the gun company Sears Roebuck who sold the defected gun to Heesen was joined as party-defendant.

The amended complaint alleged that on October 14, 1958 Sears sold to Heesen one of said Higgins Model 51 Hunting Rifles, the one that was negligently designed or manufactured by Sears, and that appellee Sears negligently failed to warn appellee Heesen of the dangerous and defective condition of the rifle.

The complaint further alleged that one afternoon in Colfox County New Mexico, Heesen negligently permitted the rifle to discharge while hunting and AS A PROXIMATE RESULT OF THE JOINT AND CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE OF BOTH APPELLEES (SEARS & HEESEN) APPELLANT (LOPEZ) SUSTAINED A SEVERE GUNSHOT WOUND TO HIS CHEST.  Appellant demanded damages in the amount of $55,000 against both appellees jointly and severally.

You see an issue arose with regard to the pressure required to move the safety lever form “safe” to “fire” position.  And appellee Sears showed that the poundage pressure required to move the safety lever on a Higgins Model 51 from “safe” to “Fire” measured 2 ½ pounds. The evidence discloses that the pound pressure required to move the safety lever on other similar devices was sometimes little less and sometimes more than the Higgins Model 51...  

In other words they couldn’t outright determine whether the 2 ½ pound pressure would be enough in order for the rifle to be safe. And that means they needed an expert opinion on this... 

The QUESTION is.. is expert opinion or shall we say Opinion Evidence be admissible in court as adduced evidence by any party?...

ISSUE:

This is a clear case of OPINION EVIDENCE because this is an ultimate ISSUE OF FACT. Where the fact to be determined is whether the safety device on the Higgins Model 51 was dangerous and defective or unsafe and was properly the subject of expert testimony.  

RULING:

Opinion Evidence is admissible on the basis that it will aid the jury to understand the problem and lead them to the truth on the ultimate facts.

It is a widely accepted American Jurisprudence that:

“In such cases, witnesses possessing requisite training, skill, or knowledge, denominated experts, may testify, not only to the facts, but to their opinions respecting the facts, so far as necessary to enlighten the jury and to enable it to come to a right verdict”  

The thing about opinion evidence is its admissibility in court depends on the facts of the case at hand. In other words, there is no clear cut basis that expert opinions adduced as evidence in ultimate issues of facts can outright determine the outcome of the case. In fact it does not attempt or have the power to usurp the functions of such in this case, the jury. As stated in the case, the jury may still reject these expert opinions and accept some other view. Its admissibility all depends on the jury’s assessment on how expert the expert opinion is. Besides, opinion evidence offered by both parties in this case was not binding upon the jury and they were so instructed.

We don't have a jury of course, but this does not only apply to the American judicial system. The fact that the case is written in our judicial records such as the PHIL REPORTS therefore follows that it is a widely accepted principle of jurisprudence in our own judicial system...  

The opinion evidence in this case were admitted on the basis that it aided the jury to understand the problem and led them to the truth on the ultimate facts.

The high court affirmed the lower court ruling.

Heesen wins this case.