to its workers. Abruska produced evidence that the slack lower wire presented a safety risk to workers. The accident report, for example, notes that “[t]he lower safety line, although connected to vertical stanchions, was loose and did not provide an effective barrier” and that “[(Inadequate and improperly secured safety lines ... [are] considered to be a major contributing factor. Joseph was able to fall through the safety lines due to the lower line being slack.” Defendants’ own witness testified that it is industry custom to provide adequate safety railings. Contrary to Defendants’ and the dissent’s assertion, Abruska was not required to produce expert testimony on the issue of breach. See Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31, 36-37, 82 S.Ct. 1119, 8 L.Ed.2d 313 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Spokane & Inland Empire R. Co. v. United
holding that expert testimony was not necessary in case involving claim that a center working with the developmentally disabled was negligent for allowing a resident to ride a swing without any safety devices designed to ensure that she would not fall off holding that expert testimony is not required to corroborate a claim for emotional distress holding that plaintiff was not required to produce expert testimony to establish a claim that the vessels lack of railings or other safety devices rendered it unseaworthy holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases