In Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, the court stated: 'The rules governing the granting of a nonsuit . . . do not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of establishing the elements of his case. The plaintiff must therefore produce evidence which supports a logical inference in his favor and which does more than merely permit speculation or conjecture. If a plaintiff produces no substantial evidence of liability or proximate cause then the granting of a nonsuit is proper.' And, while the court may infer facts from the evidence, those inferences must be logical and reasonable. The decision about what inferences can permissibly be drawn by the fact finder are questions of law for determination by the court, inasmuch as an inference may not be illogically and unreasonably drawn, nor can an inference be based on mere possibility or flow from suspicion, imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture or guesswork. Finally, the appellate court's review must be based on the whole record, not just the excerpts chosen by the appellant. 'In all cases, the determination whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding or judgment must be based on the whole record. The reviewing court may not consider only supporting evidence in isolation, disregarding all contradictory evidence.' "