Summary
In Zalzal v. Scott, 1 Ohio App.3d 151 (1st App. Dist. 1981), the court held that testimony by a shop's manager as to a customer's pulling him about by his necktie was sufficient to prove proximate cause of the manager's injuries and expert medical testimony was unnecessary.
Summary of this case from Yanovich v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc.Opinion
No. C-800088
Decided March 4, 1981.
Evidence — Expert testimony — Not necessary to produce expert testimony to prove causal connection between the tort and the injury, when.
O.Jur 2d Evidence § 494.
It is not absolutely necessary in all cases of physical injury to produce expert testimony to prove the causal connection between the tort and the injury; because, when it is a matter of common knowledge that a certain act will produce injury or pain, expert testimony is not required.
APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
Messrs. Wasserman Richards and Mr. Stuart L. Richards, for appellees.
Messrs. Rice Ladrigan and Mr. Paul D. Rice, for appellant.
After a trial to the court, judgment was awarded in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, Michael Zalzal and Ziebart Rustproofing, Inc., and against the defendant-appellant, Richard Scott, for personal injury and for the cost of rustproofing defendant's car. Defendant appeals the first part of the judgment only (not the cost of rustproofing), claiming that the court erred in awarding damages for personal injury because plaintiff Michael Zalzal failed to offer expert medical testimony of the causal connection between the tortious act and the injury. We find no error.
Defendant refused to pay the bill for rustproofing his car because it was not cleaned up and ready for him at the moment he arrived to get it. The Ziebart manager (Zalzal) testified that the defendant was violent and that he grabbed the manager by the tie and pulled him at least half the length of the car. While the manager did not receive any medical treatment other than aspirin, he suffered pain in his neck and shoulders and he had headaches.
We do not reach and do not decide whether the evidence of pain was sufficient in character and scope to support the judgment or whether the amount of the award was excessive, because those issues were not raised in this appeal.
Contrary to appellant's claim, it is not absolutely necessary in all cases of physical injury to produce expert testimony to prove the causal connection between the tort and the injury; because, when it is a matter of common knowledge that a certain act will produce injury or pain, expert testimony is not required. Thus, an expert medical witness was not necessary to prove that, when a liquid heated to 880 degrees Fahrenheit came into contact with the plaintiff's eye, it caused injury. Bowling v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 23 [30 O.O. 245]. In this case, the testimony of plaintiff Zalzal about being pulled around by his necktie was sufficient to prove the proximate cause of his injuries.
The assignment of error has no merit. We affirm.
Judgment affirmed.
BLACK, P.J., PALMER and KLUSMEIER, JJ., concur.