Does expert testimony have to be introduced in a tort action?

16 Plaintiffs contend that Sabella v. Wisler (1963) 59 Cal.2d 21, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889, supports their argument that expert testimony should not have been required. The contention lacks merit. First, in Sabella, we did not discuss or even indicate whether expert testimony had been introduced. Second, in upholding the trial court's finding that the defendant-contractor was negligent, we noted the applicable standard of care to be that of "reasonably prudent persons' In his (the contractor's) Position . . ..' (Id. at p. 25, 27 Cal.Rptr. at p. 691, 377 P.2d at p. 891.) In short, we there found sufficient evidence that the defendant had failed to exercise the care of a reasonable contractor.