In Choi v. Anvil, 32 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001) the Court held that expert testimony was not required to establish a causal connection between two events unless "there is no reasonably apparent ... causal relationship between the event demonstrated and the result sought to be proved." In Choi, the court upheld the admission of lay testimony that "described a situation easily understood by a jury: a rear-end automobile collision causing relatively common injuries with symptoms like pain, stiffness, and loss of strength". The court noted that, "although a medical expert might have more precisely described the relationship between the impact and the effects described by the plaintiffs, the jury, using everyday experience, could readily find a causal relationship without this expert assistance."