Expert testimony needed for both breach of contract claim and negligence claim.

The Superior Court held that expert testimony was necessary to determine whether an attorney failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill relating to the handling of a real estate transaction because the question was outside the normal range of the ordinary experience of laypersons. The court also disagreed that the appellant’s contract claim in assumpsit should be treated separately from a negligence claim in trespass and that expert testimony was not needed to sustain the burden in the breach of contract claim. Because the breach of contract count did not allege that the appellee failed to follow specific instructions, nor that a breach of a specific provision of the contract occurred, the assumpsit claim was not a true contract cause of action but, rather, sounded in negligence. Consequently, expert testimony was needed for both claims.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2^nd Quarter, April 1, 2016}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}