Davis v. Koppers Company, Inc.

1 Citing case

  1. Sullivan v. Russell

    417 Mich. 398 (Mich. 1983)   Cited 19 times
    Recognizing an exception to the general rule that expert testimony is required in a malpractice case "when the lack of professional care is so manifest that it would be within the common knowledge and experience of the ordinary layman that the conduct was careless and not conformable to the standards of professional practice and care employed in the community"

    Accordingly, pursuant to GCR 1963, 118.3 and 865.1(1), (7), we order that plaintiff's complaint be amended to include the latter two theories regarding teeth Nos. 10 and 12 in the allegations of dental malpractice. See, e.g., Davis v Koppers Co, Inc, 335 Mich. 9, 13-18; 55 N.W.2d 152 (1952); Toledo Pipe Organ Co v Paradise Theatre Co, 318 Mich. 342, 347-348; 28 N.W.2d 224 (1947); Smith v Baumgarten, 313 Mich. 683, 685; 21 N.W.2d 921 (1946). "based upon these facts taken more favorably to the plaintiff, * * * the excessive grinding is a matter which is subject to the necessity of an expert, or the necessity of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case.