“I think, therefore it is” is insufficient to establish causation.

In Sava v Newman’s Pub N Grub, Inc., the appellate court ruled that given Plaintiff’s lack of testimony, or circumstantial and material evidence of any presence of ice on the patio, that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing that Defendant breached a duty and that their breach was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s slip and fall. Plaintiff’s assumption or speculation that she fell on ice, coupled with witness testimony of the lack of ice, and the above freezing temperatures, did not meet the burden of proof to prove a causal connection between Defendant’s conduct and Plaintiff’s injury.

To access the full article: http://bit.ly/2GAmzoK