A plaintiff trying to make out a claim for negligence has to show two different kinds of causation. You have to show injury, duty, breach, and causation. And then you have to show both, but-for causation, sometimes called actual causation. And you also have to show what's called legal cause or, or more commonly called proximate cause. And this is one of the notoriously tricky areas of the law, is looking at proximate cause. In proximate cause, to help remember what it is you can think about it’s literal meaning proximate, means near. And so you're asking, well, even if something is a but-for cause, was it near enough, is it related enough, in time, or often in, in related, in some other way that it makes sense to still hold the defendant liable. And there's an example I like to use about this. Imagine somebody is driving their car and they're, they're littering, they throw a can out the window or something, and the can hits another car, shocks the driver, startles them, and then they end up crashing into a telephone pole. And so we could ask, well, is that, is that an actual cause? Is that a but-for cause? And we'd say, yes. If this, if this breach hadn't occurred, if you hadn't carelessly thrown this soda can, that driver wouldn't have been distracted and wouldn't have have hit the pole. And so we definitely have but-for causation there. And then we could also ask, is there proximate cause? And I won't get into the test at this point, but the answer again would be yes, that, that is also, proximate cause. But think about this case. Imagine you're driving the car down the road, somebody's driving down the road, and they toss a soda can out the window, and there's a guy standing there, and he's an anti-littering advocate. He gets very angry. He says, I can't believe he did this. He kind of thrusts his fist up into the air and shakes his fist at the person who threw the can. But unbeknownst to him, there's a beehive right above his hand. And he accidentally sticks his hand into a beehive because he's shaking his fist at the driver of the car. Now we could ask, first of all, is this a but-for cause? And we’d apply the test, we'd say, but-for the careless throwing of the soda, can, would this injury have occurred? And the answer would be no. But for the throwing of the soda can, the accident wouldn't have occurred. He wouldn't have had any reason to shake his fist. He wouldn't have put his fist up in the air and wouldn't have gotten stung by the bees. And so in that circumstance, we have but-for causation. We have what's called actual or, but-for causation. But the second question here, the idea of proximate causation is lacking here. And this example kind of hints at what the idea of proximate cause is. We're saying, yeah, it's the case that literally you but-for caused this by littering in this way, carelessly. But it feels kind of funny to hold you liable for the bee stings just because the can happened to produce them as a result. You know, who could have foreseen that? Who would've known that somebody's gonna get stung by bees because he threw a can out the window? And so then we start to wonder if liability in that context is really appropriate, even though there exists but-for causation. And so the idea of proximate cause is a test. Okay. We have but-for cause, but we also need to see do we have proximate cause because tort law will only hold defendants liable where there's both actual and proximate cause.