Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant's conduct caused her injury. Here, the only direct evidence offered by the plaintiff, her own testimony, cannot even be expressed with any degree of certainty. Were the plaintiff able to state, with some certainty, that the she would not have fallen but for the leaky soup, there might be sufficient evidence to reach a jury on causation in fact, and the jury would be entitled to judge plaintiff's credibility as to this statement. If the only evidence of causation is direct testimony that defendant's negligence might have caused the plaintiff's injury, there is insufficient evidence upon which the jury may make a finding of causation. See Reddington v. City of Phila.
Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing causation in fact.
Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment. An appropriate order follows. It is true, as plaintiffs argue, that an accident can have more than one cause. In this case, Mrs. Emguschowa has made clear that the soup alone was not sufficient to cause the injury. See Emguschowa Dep. at 49.