Problem: The general rule is that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving but-for causation. This requires the plaintiff to prove a hypothetical scenario i.e., what would (or would not) have happened without the defendant's negligence. Is this burden fair? The innovation of the court's holding in Summers v. Tice was the court's willingness to contemplate liability for a defendant for whom the plaintiff did not carry this traditional burden of proof. Is this fair?