Johnson v. Wurster
267 Pa. Super. 565
Pa. Super. Ct.1979Check TreatmentThe lower court was correct in holding that expert testimony was necessary to the plaintiffs’ case in malpractice. See Chandler v. Cook, 438 Pa. 447, 265 A.2d 794 (1970); Freed v. Priore, 247 Pa.Super. 418, 372 A.2d 895 (1977). Since the plaintiffs proffered none, the non-suit was properly granted. Therefore we need not consider the question of the correctness of the lower court’s rulings with respect to plaintiffs’ cross-examination of the defendant and the defendant’s witness.
Affirmed.