of negligence&emdash; duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570, 573 (Fla. 2001). In negligence actions, the courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation, Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Fla.1984), meaning that the defendant’s negligence “probably caused” the plaintiffs injury, Cox v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., 71 So.3d 795 (Fla.2011). However, courts treat evidence produced by plaintiffs to prove causation differently than they treat evidence produced by defendants to rebut causation. See, e.g., Haas v. Zaccaria, 659 So.2d 1130, 1133 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) (reversing a da law and decisions from other circuits. See, e.g., In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In Wilder v. Eberhart, the First Circuit
holding that defendant did not preserve state constitutional challenge to experts testimony at punishment hearing because defendant relied exclusively on federal cases in arguing for exclusion of experts testimony holding an experts testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding experts failure to explain how various factors affected his calculations rendered opinion unreliable holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable