In Friedrich v. Fetterman & Associates, P.A., 137 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013), the plaintiff was injured when the chair he sat on, inside of the defendant's law office, collapsed. Id. at 363. The plaintiff's expert and the defendant's expert disagreed as to whether the defendant "should have or could have discovered the defect of the chair upon reasonable inspection." Id. at 366. The defendant moved for a directed verdict at various points during the trial, claiming that the plaintiff had not established duty or causation. Id. at 364. The trial court denied the motions and ultimately issued a final judgment against the defendant, in accordance with the jury verdict. Id. T he defendant appealed. See Fetterman & Assocs., P.A. v. Friedrich, 69 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The district court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for entry of a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. Id. at 968. Based on the plaintiff's expert's contradictory statements regarding when the dangerous condition of the chair could have been revealed, the district court determined that "the jury had no basis from which to conclude that Fetterman would have discovered the defect in the chair," which the district court determined to be "an indispensable factor in determining liability." Id. After accepting the plaintiff's petition for review, this Court reiterated the standard for granting a directed verdict: In Florida, "an appellate court ... must view the evidence and all inferences of fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party." Owens, 802 So. 2d at 329. A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when "the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the negligent act more likely than not caused the injury," but a directed verdict is improper "if the plaintiff has presented evidence that could support a finding that the defendant more likely than not caused the injury." Cox, 71 So. 3d at 801 (emphasis in original). A directed verdict "is not appropriate in cases where there is conflicting evidence as to the causation or the likelihood of causation." Id. When determining whether a directed verdict is appropriate, the reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment concerning credibility of the witnesses for that of the trier of fact. Id. at 801 ("It was within the jury's province to evaluate the witness's credibility and weigh her testimony."). (Friedrich, 137 So. 3d at 365.) The Court determined that the district court impermissibly reweighed the testimony of the expert witnesses during trial and quashed the district court's decision.