Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 3
    I think you could look at it as a causation problem, too. If Fred hadn't closed the door, the owner probably would have anyway, leading to all the same damages. Commented May 7, 2024 at 0:48
  • 7
    “…been the but for cause in fact for…” — are any words missing/mistyped there?  Or if that makes sense, can any punctuation be added to help parse it? Commented May 7, 2024 at 8:35
  • 22
    @gidds I suspect it is a reference to the but-for test. As in, "the fire would not have occurred but for the closing of the door". A hyphen in but-for probably would have helped. Commented May 7, 2024 at 9:51
  • 9
    Considering that the car seems to have faulty wiring, and it was starting to rain, I'd think even if you knew there was a wiring issue, closing the door is still seems more reasonable than leaving it open an potentially exposing damaged electrical systems to water. Commented May 7, 2024 at 12:34
  • 4
    The car was almost 10 years old. It seems more likely that the wiring problem occurred due to normal (or perhaps excessive) wear and tear than a manufacturing defect. I'm not sure how the owner would know about it unless it was causing other symptoms. Commented May 7, 2024 at 16:30