dissolution, or destruction or of red blood cells in such a manner that hemoglobin is liberated into the medium in which the cells are suspended, e.g., by specific complement fixing antibodies, toxins, various chemical agents, tonicity, alteration of temperature with subsequent release of hemoglobin.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed.2000). 3 . Jarboe v. Harting, 397 S.W.2d 775, 778 (Ky.1965) 4 . Greer’s Adm’r v. Harrell’s Adm’r, 306 Ky. 209, 213, 206 S.W.2d 943, 946 (1947). 5 . Jarboe, 397 S.W.2d at 778; See, e.g., 7 Wig-more, Evidence, § 1917 (3d ed.1940). 6 . Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2903, 41 L.Ed.2d 590, 615 (1974); Keene v. Commonwealth, 516 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Ky.1974). 7 . Pipers v. Rosenow, 39 A.D.2d 240, 243, 333 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y.App.Div.1972) (<HOLDING>); Mengelson v. Ingalls Health Ventures, 323
holding that while a foundation for an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be based on the testimony of an expert witness the experts testimony must establish that the occurrence indicates the probability of negligence holding that permitting jury to find malpractice from blood draw without expert testimony by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur instead of eliciting expert testimony as to the standard of care to be reversible error holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care holding that defendant moving for summary judgment in a legal malpractice claim need not present expert testimony establishing a standard of care even though a plaintiff in that position would need to do so because the case law establishing the plaintiffs duty to provide expert testimony cannot fairly be characterized as applying to a defendants motion under rule 56 holding res ipsa loquitur inapplicable in case where both liability and causation had to be established by expert witnesses