Well yes, that is correct, but it is not at all germain to the discussion. To refresh, the original assertion was that the impact put her in diabetic shock. That's the only point that has been under discussion. To suggest that low blood sugar might have contributed to the incident is potentially true, but irrelevant. Contributing to is causal, not a result of. The discussion was always about whether impact can cause diabetic shock. The proof was the definition of diabetic shock. There is no other discussion path at that point or any other. There was never any discussion at all about fault. I'm not sure if you followed the entire thread - it appears that you might not have. It would be worth taking a look at it from the beginning.