F: TC ruled in favor of P.
P, a guest in the D’s hotel, injured from an object that fell from a broken transom when the P opened the door. There was evidence that the condition of disrepair had existed long enough to charge D with notice of it. Some yrs later skin cancer developed at the point of the injury.
I: In circumstances where the issues like beyond the range of the experience of laymen and which they have no appreciable knowledge, whether courts and juries must necessarily depend upon and accept the undisputed testimony of reputable specialists such as medical testimony in the causation btw negligence on the part of D and injury of P
R: IN order to impose liability on D, it is not sufficeint that P prove that D's neg. and P's injury co-existed or that the injury came after the neg. of D