A student's father brought a negligence action against a school board, alleging that a teacher had failed to report abuse that the student reported to her in his journal. A jury instruction on the issue of whether the teacher complied with the statute requiring teachers to report suspected or known child abuse should have presented the text of the statute, rather than stating that the statute "sets forth a subjective standard," given that there was no definitive case on point as to whether a teacher's suspicion was subject to an entirely subjective standard or an objective reasonable person standard. Furthermore, the testimony of an expert who testified on behalf of the school board was inadmissible to the extent that she editorialized on the contents of the statute, because the language of the statute spoke for itself, and because the expert incorrectly construed the requirements of the statute.