judgment in accordance with Rule 56, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings; rather, the nonmovant must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, the nonmovant “must make a sufficient showing on every essential element of its case for which it has the burden of proof at trial.” Wilson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 55 F.3d 399, 405 (8th Cir.1995). II. Cause of Death To establish Bieffe’s liability for the alleged defect in the BF85, plaintiff must prove that the defect probably, or more likely than not, caused the injury. See, e.g., Walton v. Jones, 286 N.W.2d 710, 715 (Minn.1979) (<HOLDING>); Block v. Target Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 705,
holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct holding that discovery rule applied to wrongful death action predicated on medical malpractice holding that testimony taken as a whole must establish reasonable medical certainty that the negligence caused the injuries at issue holding that in negligence actions florida courts follow the more likely than not standard of causation ie they require proof that the negligence probably caused the plaintiffs injury holding in the medical malpractice context that a plaintiff must prove that the alleged negligence more likely than not caused the victims death