In Lockwood v. Lord, 163 Vt. 210, 218, 657 A.2d 555 (1994), the defendant claimed that the trial court had improperly instructed on "increased risk of harm" as a separate cause of action. The Court held that the court had simply used the language as "an awkward way of differentiating multiple proximate causes." Id. Thus, the "loss of chance" doctrine was not raised or addressed; indeed, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff there was more than ample to satisfy the traditional proximate cause standard. See id. at 216, 657 A.2d at 559.