identical to the facts in the instant case. There, a hospital patient who had waited a “long time” for the nursing staff to respond to her call fight attempted to walk to the bathroom without assistance and fell. The Vermont court held that the patient was not required to present expert testimony as to the unreasonableness of the delay in answering her call fight because the alleged lack of care related to matters that were reasonably within the knowledge and experience of the average layperson. The court stated: “We perceive nothing technical or beyond the common knowledge of a layperson in the essential function of supplying a bedpan with reasonable expedition to a bedpatient in a hospital. Ministering to the fundamental needs of such a patient is, 42, 348 S.E.2d 173, 174 (1986) (<HOLDING>); McGraw v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 200 W.Va. 114,
holding that a reason to combine may come from the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art the nature of the problem to be solved or common knowledge and common sense holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion holding that where the common knowledge or experience of laymen jurors is extensive enough to recognize or infer medical negligence from the circumstances then an expert witness is not necessary holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision  was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity holding that since the matter of a fall is not a technical one outside the comprehension of a layman the common knowledge or experience of the jurors was sufficient to enable them to infer a lack of proper care and the causal link to the plaintiffs fall