With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.,

A: holding where reasonable minds may differ questions of causation are for the jury
B: holding when reasonable minds cannot differ the question of comparative negligence is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment
C: 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
D: holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction
A.