""sizwa kuthiwa amapholisa kawayenzi lutho sekungathi ayayekethisa ukuvikela laba omama ngoba athi angithi lithi lavunyelwa ngumthetho zenzeleni. so inani abantu abadlwengulwayo, abatshaywayo abatshontshelwayo selisiya liqnasa,"" kutsho umokwele. Dr. Richardson claims the "use of the treadmill and Sauter's 'tapping up' duties were part of and in the course of, the medical professional's performance of an endoscopic examination of the upper airway of the horse." However, the undisputed evidence establishes that treadmills are used both inside and outside the veterinary context, and a horse should be handled the same on a treadmill regardless of the setting. Further, there is no suggestion of any nexus between the endoscopic examination and Rossa's injury. If a horse were injured on a treadmill at a training facility, expert medical testimony would not be required to prove negligence. The result should not be different merely because the treadmill here was used in a veterinary hospital. In other words, the acts of Dr. Richardson and Sauter are not matters peculiarly within the knowledge of veterinary professionals. Accordingly, Moses could establish the defendants' negligence through the testimony of McEwan, an expert in the areas of horse training and treadmill procedures (see Evid.Code, �� 720 & 801), and denial of the motion for nonsuit was proper.