Robert Grimm v. John Wayne Fox — Palmer, J., concurring

Summary

Palmer, J., concurred in affirming the judgment for the defendants but would have resolved the appeal on the alternative ground that the plaintiff failed to present expert testimony establishing proximate cause. The concurrence reasoned that proving the underlying appeal would have succeeded required a case-within-a-case analysis beyond the competence of a lay jury. It regarded the majority's conclusion that expert testimony was required to establish breach as a closer question that should have been avoided.