With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". provided a standard of care for bobsled rides, the Utah court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Pearce, 179 P.3d at 768. Applying Utah law to this case would probably require that we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment. It is undisputed that no Utah precedent or legislative enactment specifically establishes the standard of care for running mixed-course bicycle races. Thus, under Utah law, the standard of care in this case is not “fixed by law,” and summary judgment would be inappropriate. Under federal law, on the other hand, a defendant need not establish that the standard of care specific to the factual context of the case has been “fixed by law” in order to be granted summary judgment. See Gans v. Mundy, 762 F.2d 338, 342 (3rd Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original); see also id. at 343

A: holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care
B: holding that defendant moving for summary judgment in a legal malpractice claim need not present expert testimony establishing a standard of care even though a plaintiff in that position would need to do so because the case law establishing the plaintiffs duty to provide expert testimony cannot fairly be characterized as applying to a defendants motion under rule 56
C: holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care
D: holding that jurors do not need expert testimony on matters of common knowledge
B.