The fact that a health-care professional exercises medical judgment when committing a negligent act does not prohibit lay jurors from evaluating on the basis of common knowledge and experience the reasonableness of the health-care professional's action; for example, surgeons certainly exercise medical judgment while performing surgery, but, "if a foreign object is left within the body of a patient on whom an operation has been performed, to his injury, laymen may properly decide the question of negligence without the aid of experts." Roberts v Young, 369 Mich 133, 138; 119 NW2d 627 (1963), citing Wood v Vroman, 226 Mich 625, 198 NW 228 (1924); LeFaive v Asselin, 262 Mich 443, 247 NW 911 (1933); Taylor v. Milton, 353 Mich 421, 92 NW2d 57 (1958). Finally, although Karunakar used medical judgment for the gait assessment, lay jurors using common knowledge and experience can determine without expert testimony whether Karunakar acted unreasonably by holding onto Groesbeck—an 86-year-old, 110-pound, first-day-rehabilitation patient who had just suffered a minor stroke and had a history just several hours earlier of vomiting, dizziness, and difficulty standing—with only one hand as Groesbeck walked and by allowing Groesbeck to fall.