court must indulge every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment was granted. Wills, 351 So.2d at 32. Moreover, in negligence cases, summary judgment should be cautiously granted. Gonzalez v. B&B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc., 692 So.2d 297, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(citing Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985)); Johnson v. Treasure Coast Plaza, Ltd., 670 So.2d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The issue of negligence, and more specifically, the determination of proximate cause, is ordinarily a question that should be left for a jury. McDonald v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 655 So.2d 1164, 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Grail v. Risden, 167 So.2d 610, 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); see Sol Walker & Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 362 So.2d 45, 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)(<HOLDING>). Further, “[u]nless a movant can show
holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury holding that whether the negligent acts of parties combined to become the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue