Timeline for answer to Fred closes a stranger's truck door; the truck later burns down. What is Fred's liability? by ohwilleke
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2024 at 0:06 | history | edited | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| May 10, 2024 at 0:02 | comment | added | JustWilliam | This is a very good answer. | |
| S May 9, 2024 at 20:52 | history | suggested | CGCampbell | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
page describing the 'but-for cause-in-fact' test
|
| May 9, 2024 at 12:14 | comment | added | CGCampbell | I also had trouble (and didn't know about, as IANAL) parsing the but for cause statement in the answer, so I've linked a Wikipedia page describing it. If you search for "but-for cause-in-fact" you'll see a number of links, including Westlaw that do a pretty good job at layman's description. (Soon as the edit is approved anyway.) | |
| May 9, 2024 at 12:12 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 9, 2024 at 20:52 | |||||
| May 7, 2024 at 16:30 | comment | added | Barmar | 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. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 12:34 | comment | added | JMac | 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. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 10:00 | comment | added | preferred_anon | @gidds Short answer: I don't know ("suspect" really means suspect in my first comment!). Longer answer: "cause-in-fact" (with quotes) does return results in google that suggest it can be a set phrase. I think either reading you say makes sense (and they have the same meaning). | |
| May 7, 2024 at 9:57 | comment | added | gidds | @preferred_anon Ah, that helps. And is ‘in fact’ being used as an interpolation (which could be set off e.g. with commas), or is ‘cause in fact’ a set phrase (which could be e.g. hyphenated or quoted)? | |
| May 7, 2024 at 9:51 | comment | added | preferred_anon | @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. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 8:35 | comment | added | gidds | “…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? | |
| May 7, 2024 at 1:48 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @bdb484 I looked at a different causation analysis, but that works too. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 0:48 | comment | added | bdb484 | 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. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 0:23 | history | answered | ohwilleke | CC BY-SA 4.0 |