With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1965)); see W. LaFave & A. Scott, supra § 35, at 257; W. Prosser, supra § 44, at 271. Only intervening causes which are also superseding relieve the defendant of liability. Haumersen v. Ford Motor Co., 257 N.W.2d 7, 15 (Iowa 1977). Thus, it was necessary for trial court to instruct the jury as to criteria for determining whether the intervening act of Gloria’s shooting herself was also a superseding act. Trial court would not have been justified in determining, as a matter of law, that her act was a superseding cause. See id. (question is for jury when reasonable minds may differ as to outcome of application of test for intervening, superseding cause). See also State v. Bier, 591 P.2d 1115, 1118 (Mont.1979); Commonwealth v. Feinberg, 433 Pa. 558, 568-69, 253 A.2d 636, 642 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The instruction on intervening, superseding

A: holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection
B: recognizing that providing means to inflict selfinjury may show a sufficient causal connection to sustain a homicide conviction if the selfinjury was a foreseeable result
C: recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction
D: holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury
B.