KS Condo v. Fairfax Village Condominium VII, 302 A.3d 503

Fairfax Village Condominium VII (Fairfax) managed common elements for a multi-unit building; individual owners could not repair common elements themselves.
Beginning in 2015 Fairfax received repeated, unambiguous warnings from its contractors (Property Diagnostics and the Falcon Group) that a rear foundation block wall was ‘‘serious’’/‘‘urgent’’ and could collapse if not repaired promptly.
The board repeatedly discussed repairs, financing options (special assessment or loan), and obtained bids and engineering proposals, but did not commence repairs for more than two years and took only limited preliminary steps.
The foundation wall collapsed in July 2017, rendering KS Condo’s unit uninhabitable for nearly a year; KS Condo sued Fairfax for negligence seeking lost rental income and relocation expenses.
At bench trial the court ruled for Fairfax, holding KS Condo failed to prove breach and causation because it presented no expert testimony on the applicable standard of care or on causation; KS Condo appealed.
The D.C. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding expert testimony was not required to prove breach or causation on these facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony was required to establish the applicable standard of care/breach	Expert testimony not required; the question was within common knowledge, Fairfax was a lay board, and Fairfax’s own experts warned of imminent danger	Expert testimony required to define what a condominium association must do to maintain common elements	Expert testimony not required; a lay factfinder could decide reasonableness of the board’s prolonged inaction in face of urgent warnings
Whether expert testimony was required to establish causation between Fairfax’s inaction and the collapse	Causation proven by preponderance: repeated warnings, inaction, and the predicted collapse occurred	An expert was needed to link prior warnings to the collapse and to rule out intervening causes	Expert testimony not required; a factfinder could reasonably conclude inaction more likely than not caused the collapse without ruling out all other possibilities
Standard of review for decision that expert testimony is required	KS Condo: question of law, review de novo	Fairfax: trial court discretion; review for abuse of discretion	Court applied abuse-of-discretion precedent but noted the tension and adhered to existing D.C. authority

Blair v. District of Columbia, 190 A.3d 212 (D.C. 2018) (assessing when lay factfinder can decide issues without expert assistance)
Tulin v. District of Columbia, 994 A.2d 788 (D.C. 2010) (discussing trial court discretion on necessity of expert testimony)
Washington Hosp. Ctr. v. Martin, 454 A.2d 306 (D.C. 1982) (no expert needed where issue falls within ordinary lay experience)
DeStefano v. Children’s Nat’l Med. Ctr., 121 A.3d 59 (D.C. 2015) (no expert required where hazard and reasonable precautions are within common knowledge)
Katkish v. District of Columbia, 763 A.2d 703 (D.C. 2000) (expert testimony required in non-emergency tree-maintenance context where emergency nature was not communicated)
Providence Hosp., Inc. v. Willis, 103 A.3d 533 (D.C. 2014) (plaintiff need not rule out every other cause; proof by preponderance suffices for causation)
Columbus Props., Inc. v. O’Connell, 644 A.2d 444 (D.C. 1994) (expert-required causes of action are rare outside professional malpractice)
District of Columbia v. Davis, 386 A.2d 1195 (D.C. 1978) (discussing standard of review for trial-court rulings on expert testimony)
Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (no expert needed where complained-of condition persisted openly and notoriously)