that Brown or the Center could do. Even if a patient shows up with a driver at the time of the appointment, how is the Center to know that the driver will still be there after the procedure is completed and the patient is ready to be released? The only way to assure that no patient drives would be for the Center to acquire cars and hire drivers to take patients home. That would hardly be reasonable. The Center is not an insurer of its patients’ safety. Dollins, supra. Young acted recklessly in ignoring the advice he was given and suffered the consequences. The circuit court correctly found no duty to insure that no patient drives after the procedure. Gunter, J., joins. Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority opinion and write merely to underscore the f (1989) (<HOLDING>). See also Williamson v. Elrod, 348 Ark. 307,
holding that affidavit of respiratory therapist which offered nothing to sustain the courteaus burden of proof of the standard of care under  16 114206al was insufficient to establish radiologists malpractice holding that allowing the statute of limitations to run on the clients claim is an example of obvious malpractice that does not require expert testimony to establish a standard of care holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care