Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The court erred in allowing the witness Ashmead to testify as to whether it was possible for a person sitting in the position Mrs. Healy was in to stand the force of the jars and still retain her seat upon the cars, as it called for the opinion of the witness, and for a like reason it was error for the court to allow testimony of the witness that he thought the car was too narrow for the track. (Sappenfield v. Main St. etc. B. B. Co., 91 Cal. 59; Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 280; Shafter v. Evans, 53 Cal. 32; Enright v. Bailroad Co., 33 Cal. 236; New England Glass Co. v. Lovell, 7 Cush. 321; White v. Ballou, 8 Allen, 408: Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N. Y. 507; 49 Am. Rep. 544.) The court erred in allowing Dr. Pace to testify as to the effect the injuries received would have on the plaintiff according to the “cases on record,” as the course pursued amounted to the introduction in evidence of the record of the cases. (1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 440; Blair v. Madison Co., 81 Iowa, 313; Gallagher v. Market St. By. Co., 67 Cal. 13; Fisher v. Southern Pae. B. B. Co., 89 Cal. 399.) The court erred in allowing testimony as to how the plaintiff looked immediately after the accident. (Sappenfield v. Main St. etc. B. B. Co., 91 Cal. 59; Kauffman v. Maier, 94 Cal. 280.) The court erred in allowing Mrs. Healy to testify that prior to the accident she was able to do all the household work, and that since the accident she had not been able to do the work, as the wife’s time and service belong to the husband, who must sue alone for any loss thereof. (Matthew v. Central Pac. B. B. Co., 63 Cal. 450; Tell v. Gibson, 66 Cal. 247; Sheldon v. Steamship Uncle Sam, 18 Cal. 527; 79 Am. Dec. 193; Atchison etc. B. B. v. McGinnis, 46 Kan. 109; City of Wyandotte v. Agan, 37 Kan. 528; Smith v. City of St. Joseph, 55 Mo. 456; 17 Am. Rep. 660; Hunt v. Town of Winfield, 36 Wis. 154; 17 Am. Rep. 482; Filer v. New York etc. B. B. Co., 49 N. Y. 47; 10 Am. Eep. 327; King v. Thompson, 87 Pa. St. 365; 30 Am. Eep. 364; 3 Sutherland on Damages, 720, 723.)

It was not error for the court to allow Ashmead to testify that he thought the car was too narrow for the track, and the parties made no objection which would authorize them to reserve an exception to the testimony given. (Brumley v. Flint, 87 Cal. 471.) It was not error for the court to permit the witness Ashmead to testify that Mrs. Healy could not stand the force of the cars and retain her seat upon the car, as the testimony was not in the nature of opinions. (Hanna v. Barker, 6 Col. 303; Baltimore etc. Turnpike Co. v. Cassell, 66 Md. 419; 59 Am. Eep. 175; Baltimore etc. Turnpike Co. v. Crowther, 63 Md. 568; McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Cochran, 64 Mich. 636; Grimmell v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 73 Iowa, 93; Freeman v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 572; Tompkins v. Toland, 46 Tex. 584; Killian v. Augusta etc. R. R. Co., 78 Ga. 749; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. v. Donnegan, 111 Ind. 179; 1 Sutherland on Damages, sec. 786; 1 Wharton on Evidence, 510-13; Carthage Turnpike Co. v. Andrews, 102 Ind. 138; Yost v. Conroy, 92 Ind. 464; Atchison etc. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 39 Kan. 419; Commonwealth v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122; 19 Am. Eep. 401; State v. Shinborn, 46 N. H. 501; City of Parsons v. Lindsay, 26 Kan. 432; Parker v. Boston etc. Steamship Co., 109 Mass. 449; State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148; Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 44; Merkle v. Township of Bennington, 68 Mich. 133; Laughlin v. Street R. R. of Grand Rapids, 63 Mich. 220; Ward v. Charleston City R. R. Co., 19 S. C. 521; 45 Am. Eep. 794; Pollock v. Gantt, 69 Ala. 373; Ware v. Morgan, 67 Ala. 461; Georgia R. R. Co. v. Bryans, 77 Ga. 429; Butterfield v. Gilchrist, 63 Mich. 155; Bridger v. Asheville etc. R. R. Go., 25 S. C. 24; Fort Worth etc. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 75 Tex. 501; Travelers’ Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751; Armstrong v. Chicago etc. R. R. Go., 45 Minn. 85.) It was not error to permit the witnesses not experts to testify as to what seemed to be the appearance of the plaintiff immediately after the injury. (Weber v. City of Crestón, 75 Iowa, 16; City of Goshen v. England, 119 Ind. 368.) Nor was it error for the court to permit the physicians to give the testimony which they did, founded in part upon the statements made to them by the injured party. (Armstrong v. Aclcley, 71 Iowa, 76; Powell v. Augusta efe. R. R. Co., 77 Ga. 192; Jones v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co., 43 Minn. 279; Squires v. City of Chillicothe, 89 Mo. 226; Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435; 10 Am. St. Eep. 60; Werely V. Persons, 28 N. Y. 344; 84 Am. Dec. 346; Matte-son v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 35 1ST. Y. 487; 91 Am. Dec. 67; 1 Wharton on Evidence, 3d ed., sec. 268.) The court did not err in refusing to exclude the testimony of Hattie Healy as to her inability to perform her work, and as her testimony was only directed to showing the extent of her injuries, and as no damages were claimed in the complaint or proven for loss occasioned by impaired capacity to labor, the jury could not have founded their verdict upon such theory. (Grandona v, Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161; Dabovich v. Emeric, 12 Cal. 171; 1 Estee’s Pleadings, sec. 326; Stevenson v. Smith, 28 Cal. 102; 87 Am. Dec. 107; Gay v. Winter, 34 Cal. 153; Lewiston Turnpike Co. v. Shasta etc. W. R. Co., 41 Cal. 562; Campbell v. Water and Min. Co., 35 Cal. 679.)