Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (1983)

Citation
George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (1983)
Parent Document
George Washington University v. Weintraub, 458 A.2d 43 (1983)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1983-02-25

Other Sections in This Document (206)

Full Text

873 chars
[7] I would not preclude the trial court from exercising its discretion, before sustaining the use of res ipsa loquitur, to require expert testimony when it does not appear that common knowledge and experience are sufficient to enable a lay person to determine whether the accident would — or would not — ordinarily occur without negligence. See, e.g., Brizendine v. Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist., 97 Idaho 580, 584, 548 P.2d 80, 85 (1976) ("[W]here common knowledge alone may not be sufficient to enable a layman to say" the accident would not ordinarily occur without negligence, "expert testimony may be admissible" to give foundation for trier to infer negligence; in this case it was entirely proper for the "trier of fact, reasoning from his common experience in light of the expert testimony," to conclude that canal would not ordinarily break without negligence).