Alternative liability shifts the burden to multiple negligent defendants to prove they did not cause the harm.

But-for causation asks whether the harm would have occurred absent the defendant's conduct.

Cause in fact is the factual link between conduct and harm, distinct from the legal limitation of proximate cause.

Concurrent causation exists where two or more causes combine to produce harm, each contributing to the result.

General causation is proof that a substance or product is capable of causing the disease alleged, independent of the individual plaintiff.

Increased risk of harm is a causation theory permitting recovery where negligence raised the probability of an adverse outcome.

The loss of chance doctrine permits recovery for a reduced probability of a better outcome, valued proportionally.

Market share liability apportions damages among manufacturers by market share where the specific product cannot be identified.

Proximate cause is the legal limitation on liability, confining responsibility to harms sufficiently connected to the defendant's conduct.

Specific causation is proof that the substance actually caused this plaintiff's disease, established after general causation is shown.

The substantial factor test asks whether conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, replacing but-for where it fails.