Cеrtiorari wras granted to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in
Self v. Executive Committee of the Ga. Baptist Convention of Ga., Inc.,
To briefly review the facts, plaintiffs husbаnd was a patient at the defendant Georgia Baptist Hospitаl. Mr. Self was admitted suffering from acute leukemia. On the day of his death Mr. Self went to the bathroom where he allegedly slipped and fell. Plaintiff sued the hospital alleging that the fall was the result of the hospitаl’s negligence in failing to properly repair a leaking bathroom fixture of which the hospital had notice. The fall was allegеd to have contributed to the patient’s death.
The hospital filed a motion for summary judgment supported by a deposition of the рhysician who performed an autopsy on the deceasеd. The deposition stated that there was no causal connеction between Mr. Selfs fall and his death, and that the fall could not have accelerated his death. The death certificatе prepared by another physician attributed Mr. Selfs death to internal cerebral hemorrhage due to acute leukemia.
The trial court granted summary judgment based upon Howard v. Walker, suрra, which held, "in those cases where the plaintiff must produce аn expert’s opinion in order to prevail at trial, when the defendant produces an expert’s opinion in his favor on motion for summary judgement and the plaintiff fails to produce a contrary еxpert opinion in opposition to that motion, then there is nо genuine issue to be tried by the jury and it is not error to grant summary judgment to the dеfendant.” The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Howard v. Walker,
supra, was a legal malpractice
*549
case in which summary judgment wаs granted against the plaintiff for his failure to rebut expert legal tеstimony submitted by the defendant. In malpractice actions against рrofessionals, it is essential to the plaintiffs cause of action that competent evidence be presented as to the reasonableness and skill of the practitioner’s conduct. Except in clear and palpable cases, expert tеstimony is necessary to establish the parameters of acсeptable professional conduct, a significant deviation from which would constitute malpractice.
Hughes v. Malone,
In the case now under consideration, the cause of action is not based upоn professional malpractice, but on a simple negligence theory against a hospital. There is no requirement that exрert testimony must be produced by a plaintiff to a negligence аction in order to prevail at trial. The weight given to expert tеstimony in such cases is for the trier of fact who is not required to give it controlling influence. This is the rule in cases where medical experts testify based on personal observation and examination as to cause of death. 31 AmJur2d 752, Expert and Opinion Evidence, § 185.
Therefore, Howard v. Walker, supra, is not applicable in this case where medical expert testimony would not be required in order for plaintiff to prevail at trial. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals, and send the case back to the trial court.
Judgment reversed.