is that [w]hether in a particular case that standard [plaintiff’s burden of preponderance of the evidence] has been met with respect to the element of causation is normally a question of fact for the jury; the question is to be removed from the jury’s consideration only where it is clear that reasonable minds could not differ on the issue. In establishing a Prima [sic] facie case, the plaintiff need not exclude every possible explanation [...]; it is enough that reasonable minds are able to conclude that the preponderance of the evidence shows defendant’s conduct to have been a substantial cause of the harm to plaintiff. Hamil v. Bashline, 481 Pa. 256, 392 A.2d 1280, 1284-85 (Pa.1978) (emphasis added); see also Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hosp., Inc., 502 Pa. 241, 465 A.2d 1231, 1234 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Topelski v. Universal South Side Autos, Inc.,
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 holding when reasonable minds cannot differ the question of comparative negligence is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction holding where reasonable minds may differ questions of causation are for the jury 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