The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof." St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, Syl. ¶ 1, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). The trial court found Carl's claim of false arrest and imprisonment failed, as a matter of law, because the restraint was legal.
Contrary to Illig's assertions, this court has required expert testimony on causation even when there was a clear medical error-which this court does not presume here. See, e.g., St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). In Hale, a panel of this court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim where medical providers left a clip in the patient's leg after surgery and the patient developed a staph infection in that same leg.
The extent and character of the care that a hospital owes its patients depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and the measure of duty of a hospital is to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence used by hospitals generally in the community. St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, 619, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). " 'The standard of medical and hospital care which is to be applied in each case is not a rule of law, but a matter to be established by the testimony of competent medical experts.' [Citation omitted.]"
" 'The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof.' " 252 Kan. at 1041, 850 P.2d 789 (quoting St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, Syl. p 1, 752 P.2d 129 [1988]. CONTRACT CLAIM
See id. (expert testimony required); Perkins v. Susan B. Allen Mem'l Hosp., 146 P.3d 1102, 1107 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006) (same); St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hale, 752 P.2d 129, 134 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988) (affirming summary judgment). The district court rejected Mr. Tarantola's claim that the Kansas common knowledge exception obviated the need for expert testimony in his case.
The elements of breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract between the parties; (2) consideration; (3) Plaintiff's performance or willingness to perform in compliance with the contract; (4) Defendants' breach of the contract; and (5) damages as a result of the breach.St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, 617, 752 P.2d 129, 132 (1988). See, e.g., Britvic Soft Drinks, Ltd. V. ACSIS Techs., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1187 (D. Kan. 2003).
Cunningham v. Riverside Health Sys., Inc., 33 Kan. App. 2d 1, 99 P.3d 133 (2004).St. Francis Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, 752 P.2d 129 (1988) (noting that such facts might qualify for the common knowledge exception in a suit against the doctor, but this claim was against the hospital).Webb v. Lungstrum, 223 Kan. 487, 575 P.2d 22 (1978).
223 Kan. at 491. The common knowledge exception was found not applicable and expert medical evidence was required in the following cases: Bacon, 243 Kan. 303; Webb, 223 Kan. 487; Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390, 424 P.2d 488 (1967); Heany, 23 Kan. App. 2d 583; St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan. App. 2d 614, 752 P.2d 129 (1988); Crooks v. Greene, 12 Kan. App. 2d 62, 736 P.2d 78 (1987); and Crowley v. O'Neil, 4 Kan. App. 2d 491, 609 P.2d 198, rev. denied 228 Kan. 806 (1980). The exception was applied in McKnight v. St. Francis Hosp. School of Nursing, 224 Kan. 632, 585 P.2d 984 (1978); Hiatt v. Groce, 215 Kan. 14, 523 P.2d 320 (1974); Karrigan v. Nazareth Convent Academy, Inc., 212 Kan. 44, 510 P.2d 190 (1973); Rule v. Cheeseman, Executrix, 181 Kan. 957, 317 P.2d 472 (1957); and Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 255 P.2d 1033 (1953).
Expert testimony is often "required in medical malpractice cases to establish the accepted standard of care and to prove causation." 243 Kan. at 307, 756 P.2d 416. Accord St. Francis Regional Med. Center, Inc. v. Hale, 12 Kan.App.2d 614, 618, 752 P.2d 129 (1988). Drs.