likely standard in Florida

2024Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.”); Chaskes v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (observing: “Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.” (quoting Gooding, 445 So. 2d at 1019 )).

2024Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.”); Chaskes v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (observing: “Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.” (quoting Gooding, 445 So. 2d at 1019 )).

2024Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.”); Chaskes v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (observing: “Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.” (quoting Gooding, 445 So. 2d at 1019 )).

2024Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“To prevail in a medical malpractice case a plaintiff must establish the following: the standard of care owed by the defendant, the defendant's breach of the standard of care, and that said breach proximately caused the damages claimed.”); Chaskes v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (observing: “Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.” (quoting Gooding, 445 So. 2d at 1019 )).

2015First, the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment appears to have been based on the element of causation which the trial court believed to be unprovable. “ ‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused .the plaintiffs injury.’ ” Tarleton v. Arnstein & Lehr, 719 So.2d 325, 328-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Gooding v. Univ.

2011Best Roofing, Inc., 832 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). . " ‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.’" Tarleton v. Amstein & Lehr, 719 So.2d 325, 328-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Gooding v. Univ.

2012See Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746 , 190 So. 26 (1939); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert, denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert, denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla.1978).

2012See Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746 , 190 So. 26 (1939); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert, denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert, denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla.1978).

1986Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d 242, 253-54 , 272 N.E.2d 97, 104 (1971).

1986Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc., 27 Ohio St.2d 242, 253-54 , 272 N.E.2d 97, 104 (1971).

2024Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33 , 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.’”) (quoting Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)); Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 68 So. 3d 428, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Expert testimony is . . . necessary to establish legal causation where the issue is beyond the common knowledge of laymen.”) (citing Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777, 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)). 2

2018"In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff's injury." Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc. , 239 So.3d 738 , 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (quoting Gooding v. Univ.

2024Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33 , 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.’”) (quoting Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)); Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 68 So. 3d 428, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Expert testimony is . . . necessary to establish legal causation where the issue is beyond the common knowledge of laymen.”) (citing Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777, 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)). 2

2012See Tampa Electric Co. v. Jones, 138 Fla. 746 , 190 So. 26 (1939); Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So.2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert, denied, 374 So.2d 99 (Fla.1979); Bryant v. Jax Liquors, 352 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert, denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla.1978).

2025See Brown, 460 U.S. at 742 ("[Probable cause] merely requires that the facts available to the officer would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false." (citation omitted)); see also Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013) ("The test for probable cause is not reducible to 'precise definition or quantification.' 'Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the

2025See Brown, 460 U.S. at 742 ("[Probable cause] merely requires that the facts available to the officer would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false." (citation omitted)); see also Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013) ("The test for probable cause is not reducible to 'precise definition or quantification.' 'Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the

2025See Brown, 460 U.S. at 742 ("[Probable cause] merely requires that the facts available to the officer would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false." (citation omitted)); see also Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243 (2013) ("The test for probable cause is not reducible to 'precise definition or quantification.' 'Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the

2024Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33 , 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.’”) (quoting Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)); Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 68 So. 3d 428, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Expert testimony is . . . necessary to establish legal causation where the issue is beyond the common knowledge of laymen.”) (citing Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777, 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)). 2

2024Grp., Inc. v. Rolland, 271 So. 3d 33 , 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.’”) (quoting Siegel v. Cross Senior Care, Inc., 239 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)); Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 68 So. 3d 428, 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“Expert testimony is . . . necessary to establish legal causation where the issue is beyond the common knowledge of laymen.”) (citing Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777, 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)). 2

2013“While some jurisdictions allow recovery for the loss of any chance for improvement, ... anything less than the more likely than not causation requirement in medical malpractice actions [is] improper.” Beisel v. Lazenby, 444 So.2d 953, 953 (Fla.1984).

2011Best Roofing, Inc., 832 So.2d 784, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). . " ‘In negligence actions Florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation and require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiff’s injury.’" Tarleton v. Amstein & Lehr, 719 So.2d 325, 328-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (quoting Gooding v. Univ.

2006The Florida Supreme Court stated long ago that "[t]he opinion of an expert is not sufficient to eliminate the necessity of proving the foundation facts necessary to support the opinion." Harris v. Josephs of Greater Miami, Inc., 122 So.2d 561, 562 (Fla.1960).