California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Stanley v. Richmond, 35 Cal.App.4th 1070, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 (Cal. App. 1995):
The only remaining question is whether there was sufficient evidence, either disputed or undisputed, that the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty or professional negligence were legal causes of damage to appellant. (See Lysick v. Walcom (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 136, 153, 65 Cal.Rptr. 406.) It is plaintiff's burden to establish " 'a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it was more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in the result.' " (Ibid.) We conclude that appellant's evidence is sufficient to raise questions of fact under this standard of causation.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.