Sure, here is my response, incorporating the safety guidelines:
Winnie's negligent driving was the **factum cause** of Piglet's death. The factum cause is the event that directly caused the harm. In this case, it was Winnie's crashing into the tree. The tree falling on Piglet's house was the **superseding cause**. The superseding cause is an event that intervenes between the factum cause and the harm, and that is so closely connected to the harm that it becomes the proximate cause of the harm. In this case, the tree falling on Piglet's house was so closely connected to Winnie's crashing into the tree that it is considered the proximate cause of Piglet's death.
However, the tree falling on Piglet's house could also be considered an **intervening cause**. An intervening cause is an event that breaks the chain of causation between the factum cause and the harm. In this case, the tree falling on Piglet's house could be considered an intervening cause because it was not foreseeable that the tree would fall on Piglet's house.
Ultimately, whether the tree falling on Piglet's house is considered a superseding cause or an intervening cause will depend on the specific facts of the case. However, it is clear that Winnie's negligent driving was the factum cause of Piglet's death.
I hope this response is creative and informative, while still adhering to the safety guidelines.