MEMORANDUM DECISION
€1 Plaintiff Lane Warenski appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment on his negligence claim in favor of defendant Advanced RV Supply. We affirm.
T2 Warenski brought a negligence action against Advanced RV Supply, alleging that its failure to properly inspect and repair a tie rod on Warenski's all-terrain vehicle (ATV) caused him to crash. After the parties completed discovery, Advanced RV Supply filed a summary judgment motion setting forth facts and expert opinion evidence challenging Warenski's claim that improper installation of the tie rod caused his accident. Specifically, Advanced RV Supply argued that based upon its expert's opinion, combined with Warenski's failure to disclose an expert to establish that Advanced RV Supply breached its duty, Warenski could not establish the elements of negligence or the foundational elements of res ipsa loquitur. Warenski replied by arguing that he had produced an expert, Fred Smith, to rebut Advanced RV Supply's expert's opinion, to establish the standard of care, and to establish the elements of res ipsa loquitur. 1 Alternatively, Warenski argued that "the standard of care [wals apparent to any average person of ordinary intelligence," which suggested that no expert was needed to establish the standard of care.
13 The district court, in granting Advanced RV Supply's summary judgment motion, determined that "1. [Warenski]l ha[d] not designated an expert[;] 2. [Warenski] re-liefd] upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, but [he could] not meet all three of the elements for the doctrine to apply; and 8. There [wals no factual issue as to the cause of the accident." Warenski appeals.
T4 On appeal, Warenski argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because he "should have [been] allowed to proceed to trial on a theory of res ipsa loquitur." Specifically, Warenski asserts that Fred Smith's expert opinion established the res ipsa loquitur elements, or alternatively, that no expert opinion was needed because "[iJt is a matter of common experience by any licensed driver that brand new tie rods do not suddenly become disassembled nine ... days after installation, unless there is negligence."
15 Advanced RV Supply, as the party moving for summary judgment on an issue that Warenski had the burden to prove at trial, "may satisfy its burden on summary judgment by showing, by reference to 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any," that there [wals no genuine issue of material fact." Orvis v. Johnson,
16 Generally,
[tlo establish a claim of negligence, the "plaintiff must establish four essential elements: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (8) that the breach of duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury, and (4) that the plaintiff in fact suffered injuries or damages."[ 2 ]
Webb v. University of Utah,
T7 Rather than directly establishing that Advanced RV Supply breached its duty by not properly installing the tie rod on Warenski's ATV and that "the breach of duty was the proximate cause of [Warenski]'s infu-ry," see id., Warenski solely relied on the res ipsa loquitor doctrine to establish the breach and causation elements of negligence.
The] foundation [for res ipsa loquitur] is usually established by proving the following three elements: (1) the accident was of a kind which, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened had the defendant used due care; (2) the ageney or instrumentality causing the accident was at the time of the accident under the exclusive management or control of the defendant; and (8) the plaintiffs own use or operation of the agency or instrumentality was not primarily responsible for the accident.
King v. Searle Pharm., Inc.,
18 In an attempt to refute Advanced RV Supply's expert and establish the res ipsa loquitur elements, Warenski relied on Smith's opinion. However, that reliance was misplaced, as the district court noted, because Warenski "ha[ld] not designated [Smith as] an expert." Instead, Warenski designated Smith as a fact witness. In fact, when a dispute arose about what type of witness Smith was, Warenski's counsel gave a sworn statement that he had "not specifically retained any expert witness in this case, including ... Fred Smith" Yet, Warenski then attempted to use Smith to opine on how far the tie rod threads should have been engaged, how a tie rod might detach without stripping the tie rod's threads, and the effect on steering if a tie rod detaches. This testimony was clearly "based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge," and thus, Smith's opinion was expert testimony rather than fact testimony. See Utah R. Evid. 701; State v. Sellers,
I 9 If Warenski wished to rely on Smith's expert opinion, then Warenski was required to take the necessary steps to properly designate Smith as an expert witness. 3 See Utah R. Evid. 702; Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(8). Thus, the district court correctly determined that Warenski "hald] not designated an expert," and we will not consider Smith's expert opinion in our analysis.
110 Nevertheless, as Warenski argues on appeal, expert testimony is ordinarily not required when attempting to establish the elements of res ipsa loquitur.
In ordinary res ipsa loquitur cases, the foundation from which a logical conclusion can be drawn that an injury was probably caused by negligence is the common knowledge and experience of the community with respect to how such events generally occur.[ 4 ] In some kinds of cases, however, the circumstances giving rise to the injury and the probabilities that the causative factors were created by a breach of legal duty are outside the realm of the common knowledge and experience of lay persons.
King,
11 The breach of duty and causative factors of Warenski's ATV accident are not in the common knowledge and experience of the average person, and thus, an expert was needed to establish the elements of res ipsa loquitur. See id. In other words, the average person would not be knowledgeable about how a tie rod is properly installed, what dangers may result if the tie rod is not properly installed, or how a tie rod could become disconnected. Therefore, expert testimony was necessary to set forth the factual foundation of the tie rod mechanism and to thereafter opine about the breach and cause of Warenski's accident.
$12 To avoid summary judgment, Warenski was required to rebut Advanced RV Supply's evidence and to establish each of the res ipsa loquitur elements. Without Smith's expert analysis and opinion, Waren-ski produced no evidence to rebut Advanced RV Supply's undisputed evidence that clearly established Warenski could not prove the first element of res ipsa loquitur, ie., that "the accident was of a kind which, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened had the defendant used due care,"
*1101
see King v. Searle Pharm., Inc.,
113 Similarly, he did not establish the second element, ie., that "the agency or instrumentality causing the accident was af the time of the accident under the exclusive management or control of" Advanced RV Supply. See King,
T14 Because Warenski did not properly dispute Advance RV Supply's evidence, War-enski could not establish the first and second elements of his res ipsa loquitur theory, on which he solely relied to establish the breach and causation elements of negligence. Therefore, Warenski's negligence claim failed as a matter of law, and the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Advanced RV Supply.
{15 I CONCUR: J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., Judge.
1 16 I CONCUR IN THE RESULT: JAMES Z. DAVIS, Presiding Judge.
Notes
. Despite Advanced RV Supply's argument that Warenski failed to establish that it had breached its duty, Warenski's opposition to Advanced RV Supply's summary judgment motion did not address the breach of duty element but instead focused on the duty or standard of care and the elements of res ipsa loquitur. To prove his negligence claim, Warenski needed to establish both duty and breach of that duty. See generally Webb v. University of Utah,
. Advanced RV Supply addressed the damage element and the lack of expert testimony to support Warenski's damage claim in a separate summary judgment motion that the district court did not address because its dispositive disposition of the other issues related to lack of expert testimony and failure to prove the res ipsa loquitur elements. Likewise, we do not address any issue associated with damages.
. Warenski's suggestion that the district court's exclusion of Smith's expert opinion was a sanction for failing to properly designate Smith as an expert is also misplaced. The district court did : not need to exclude Smith's expert opinion because Warenski continually asserted he had not retained Smith as an expert and thus, implied Smith was not subject to disclosure requirements of rule 26(a)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Warenski's attempts to distinguish between a "specifically retained" expert and a "nonretained" expert are unavailing because either would need to be designated as an expert witness. See generally Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A); Drew v. Lee,
. In the more common res ipsa loquitur case involving medical malpractice, "expert testimony is not necessary to establish the applicable standard of care in a case 'where the propriety of the treatment received is within the common knowledge and experience of the lay[person],'" Nielsen v. Pioneer Valley Hosp.,
. On appeal, Warenski suggests that portions of his testimony should be considered to rebut Advanced RV Supply's expert testimony. However, we do not consider the portions cited in his reply brief because that testimony was not included in his memorandum opposing Advance RV Supply's summary judgment. See generally Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c); id. R. 7(c)(3)(A)-(B) (requiring facts in a summary judgment memorandum to be numbered and supported by citation to the record).