Large Mart, Inc. (Large art) is a large retail store that sells a variety of consumer goods. One day after a significant snow storm hit, Large art reopened for business. Two days later the entrance to Large art remained snow covered with ice underneath. The entrance had never been plowed or shoveled after the storm. Customers had to enter the store using extreme caution. Cautious Clare was seriously injured while trying to enter the store. She slipped on the snow and suffered a non-life threatening head injury. She filed a negligence lawsuit against Large art. At trial Clare introduced the following evidence: photographs of the store entrance the day before and on the day of her injury; records obtained through Discovery that indicated Large art had a contract with a snow removal company but terminated the contract a week prior to the storm; and testimony of a Large art manager that the CEO sent all managers an email advising them that the snow removal contract was an unnecessary high cost expense because people must be responsible for themselves Which element of Negligence does this evidence attempt to prove? O A Duty O B. Breach OC. Causation Injury QUESTION 17 Using the facts in question #16, will cautious Clare be able to establish the element of Actual Cause? A. Yes. \"But For\" Large Mart\'s failure to remove the snow and ice, Clare would not have been injured. 8. No. Large Mart\'s breach was only the proximate cause of Clare\'s injury. OC. No. Causation is not required in Negligence. D. None of the choices