Opinion ID: 2176468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Absence of Expert Testimony

Text: WMATA contends that O'Neill was required to present expert testimony on whether the bus driver acted reasonably in exercising his discretion to activate the alarms, since that decision was not one within the realm of the everyday experiences of a lay person. Hughes v. District of Columbia, 425 A.2d 1299, 1303 (D.C.1981). This argument fails for at least two reasons. First, as already discussed, WMATA's safety rules restrict its drivers' discretion on what to do when a passenger is being harassed or threatened by another rider. To that extent the rules themselves provide evidence of the standard of reasonable care. Second, it is not beyond the ken of an average juror to apply that standard to particular conductto decide whether the driver followed ordinary care in the circumstances in responding to disruptive conduct. [13] The jury was fully informed of the rules guiding the conduct of WMATA's drivers in the circumstances presented; it needed no additional expert instruction in applying them to the facts of this case. [14]