participate in the intervening cause. The record established that the defendant participated in the intervening cause. By refusing to surrender, he was a cause of the rescue squad’s delay in reaching the victims. Mr. Swallow was not entitled to the requested instruction. Additionally, although the district court allowed him to present evidence in support of his theory of intervening cause, Mr. Swallow presented no evidence to rebut the government expert’s findings that Cleo and Ethan bled to death as a result of the gunshot wounds. An instruction as to intervening cause is not proper absent evidence to sustain it. See State v. Cole, 270 N.C. 382, 154 S.E.2d 506, 511 (1967) (citing 26 Am.Jur. Homicide § 533 (1940)); see also Carlston v. United States, 671 F.Supp. 1324, 1326 (D.N.M.1987) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Swallow introduced no expert testimony
holding when reasonable minds cannot differ the question of comparative negligence is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment holding where reasonable minds may differ questions of causation are for the jury holding that it may be decided as a matter of law holding summary judgment was improper because the issue of whether a reasonably prudent person would have undertaken a more diligent investigation was a matter about which reasonable minds could differ holding in a civil context when reasonable minds cannot differ on the issue of intervening cause the matter can be decided as one of law