In a medical malpractice case, in what circumstances will a jury accept that a doctor's expert testimony is not required?

The instruction as so qualified cannot have misled the jury. The first part of the instruction, in identical language, was approved in Friedman v. Dresel, 139 Cal.App.2d 333, 341, 293 P.2d 488, 493, as a correct statement of 'the general rule that ordinarily the standard of care of a doctor * * * can be established only by the testimony of experts in the field.' However the court then held that this should have been qualified by giving, as was here done, an instruction that where 'negligence on the part of a doctor is demonstrated by facts which can be evaluated by resort to common knowledge, expert testimony is not required * * *.' The instruction as a whole was proper.