In Easton v. Strassburger (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 90, a seller's broker argued it was "only obliged to disclose to the buyer known facts and has no duty to disclose facts which 'should' be known to him 'through reasonable diligence.' " (Easton at p. 98) The Easton court disagreed. It held that a seller's broker has a duty to inspect a house and disclose to the buyer what a reasonable inspection would have revealed. Before Easton, a seller's broker needed to disclose only known defects, but Easton expanded the broker's duty to include defects which the broker would have discovered. (Id. at pp. 99, 102.) Civil Code Section 2079, which codified Easton, closely tracks the language of Easton's holding. Section 2079, subdivision (a) states: "It is the duty of a real estate broker or salesperson . . . to a prospective purchaser of residential real property . . . to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale and to disclose to that prospective purchaser all facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property that an investigation would reveal . . . ." In Easton v. Strassburger (1984) 152 Cal. App. 3d 90, the Court cited one court's observation that "'the correct rule on the necessity of expert testimony has been summarized by Bob Dylan: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."'" Put another way, "'expert testimony is not required where a question is "resolvable by common knowledge." '" (Id. at p. 106.) For this reason, expert testimony on the standard of care is required most often in "'cases which depend upon knowledge of the scientific effect of medicine, or the result of surgery.'" In those cases, the standard of care "'must ordinarily be established by expert testimony of physicians and surgeons. This rule, however, applies only to such facts as are peculiarly within the knowledge of such professional experts and not to facts which may be ascertained by the ordinary use of the senses of a nonexpert.' " (Ibid.) In sum, in Easton v. Strassburger (1984) a homeowner sued a real estate broker when massive earth slides on her property destroyed part of her driveway and caused the foundation of the house to settle, causing cracks in the home's walls and warped doorways. (Id. at p. 96.) The homeowner accused the broker of negligence for failing to alert her to soil problems on the property, even though the broker knew the property was partially fill, that floors in the house were uneven, and that netting had been used to repair an earlier land slide. (Id. at pp. 97, 106.) The court held that expert testimony was not required to establish the standard of care because "it does not require an expert to explain to the jury the relationship between uneven floors and the possibility of unstable soil, or the relationship between past slide activity and the likelihood or possibility of future slide activity." (Id. at p. 106.) The court in Easton also noted that even if expert testimony were required to establish the standard of care, the testimony was supplied by the broker's agents. (Easton, supra, 152 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 106-107.)