clear that she considered substantial evidence which was inadmissible because most of the alleged negligent acts upon which her ruling was based were not proximately related to this event. An act or omission is not regarded to be a cause in fact of an event if the event would have occurred without it. Stojkovick v. Monadnock Building, 281 Ill. App. 3d 733, 738 (1996). Put another way, the act or omission is said to be a cause in fact of the event if it was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing the event about. See Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432, 455 (1992). It is not enough for plaintiff to show that Kinko’s might be somehow generally negligent — the negligence alleged must actually have caused the injury complained of. See Lee, 152 Ill. 2d at 455 (<HOLDING>). For example, if there were a large greasy
holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury holding that causeinfact inter alia must be shown to establish proximate cause holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury