Higdon v. Carlebach

The defendants in these cases insist that the trial judge was correct in entering judgments on motions notwithstanding the verdicts of the jury, on the ground that plaintiffs could not establish their alleged causes of action without expert testimony and that there was no proof of negligence on the part of defendant Bat-tersby unless it is inferred from the mere fact that plaintiff Sandra Higdon sustained an injury. With such claims we are unable to agree. It is doubtless, true that in the majority of malpractice eases expert testimony is essential to enable the triers of the facts *378to reach…