speculate as to whether the operator had sufficient time to stop the machine safely even if he had been watching a CCTV screen. Beauregard’s argument therefore reduces to the possibility that a CCTV system would have captured Bourgeois’s image in time for the operator to stop the machine safely and that the operator would have been paying attention and done so. Drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in Beauregard’s favor, a jury could conclude only that a CCTV system possibly, but not probably, would have prevented the accident that killed Bourgeois. Causation framed in terms of possibilities does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a design defect that caused an injuiy. See Goffredo v. Mercedes-Benz Truck Co., 402 Mass. 97, 102-03 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Sweeting v. Cairns & Brother, Inc., 32
holding that trial court properly granted directed verdict when plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to state cause of action under the dtp a holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party holding that a directed verdict in defendants favor was appropriate where plaintiff s expert was able to state his opinion regarding the cause of plaintiffs injuries only in terms of possibility but not of probability holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict