to the indefinite or generalizing force of “a” or “an.” ’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Sibenaller v. Milschewski, 379 Ill. App. 3d 717, 722, 884 N.E.2d 1215, 1219 (2008), quoting Brooks v. Zabka, 168 Colo. 265, 269, 450 P.2d 653, 655 (1969). Applying this principle, a compelling argument can be made that the legislature’s use of the language “the proximate cause” illustrates an intent to focus on the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause preceding an injury. See Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439, 459-60, 613 N.W.2d 307, 317 (2000). Alternatively, the language “a proximate cause” merely requires that the State establish that the accused’s actions were a contributing cause of the victim’s injuries. People v. Merritt, 343 Ill. App. 3d 442, 448, 797 N.E.2d 1103, 1107 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, because section 31 — 1 is
holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries  citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding the plaintiff must show that the defendants departure from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages