While riding her bicycle in a bike lane in downtown Phoenix, plaintiff Fong rode into an allegedly unmarked excavation trench. There was a factual dispute on whether the bike lane was closed and the signage, but on summary judgment, a court views disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor. She sued the City and the barricade company. The City and barricade company argued the expert statute A.R.S. 12-2602(B) applied, and Plaintiff did not get an expert. The trial court ruled in their favor, and the court of appeals reverses. First, whether expert testimony is required is a legal issue and review is de novo as is whether plaintiff has presented a prima facie case. (We should slow down on the Latin, but the terms are now common place.) The court of appeals fortifies its reasoning with citations from other jurisdictions. Second, as to whether expert testimony is required, if the negligence is grossly apparent to a lay person or within common knowledge, no expert testimony is necessary. The court of appeals relies on the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in Rossell v. Volkswagen of America, 147 Ariz. 160 (1985). There, the court was reluctant to extend the expert requirement beyond professional malpractice. Lay persons could easily conclude that an excavation in a road without signage or closure is unreasonable and no expert needed. The court of appeals includes several product liability cases involving warnings to consumers as an example, although this unnecessarily complicates its analysis. This is a road maintenance issue and not an issue of design. We have felt uneasiness with the Rossell opinion, its uncertain standard, and its heightened sensitivity to the plaintiff’s bar. We will see if our current Arizona Supreme Court feels this as well.