reasoned that although the defendant-Port Authority was not a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos products, but rather a premises owner, "the core of the analysis is the same in determining the scope of duty owed to. third parties.” NYC Asb., 14 A.D.3d at 119, 786 N.Y.S.2d at 32. We find the same holds true in determining causation. 23 . Although American Cyanamid argues that the issue in this case on causation is not credibility (a factual issue), but rather sufficiency of the evidence (a legal issue), the Louisiana Supreme Court has held the applicable standard of review in addressing sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error. See Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 2003-1734 (La.4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 99 (citing Nabors Drilling USA v. Davis, 2003-0136 (La.10/21/03), 857 So.2d 407, 416)(<HOLDING>). 24 . La. C.E. art. 705(A) provides: In a
holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that jackson standard is only standard to use when determining sufficiency of evidence holding the applicable standard of review in addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is manifest error holding the manifest error standard of review is the proper standard to be applied to the mixed question of law and fact presented by a determination of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm holding that the standard of review for the sufficiency of the evidence is the same as the standard for denying a motion for a directed verdict