As we will later observe, however, this is not necessarily the case as courts using direct cause analysis often hold a D liable despite intervening acts. On the other hand, the direct cause test may be too inclusive, suggesting liability in cases where the consequence of the D's negligence is too unexpected. The direct causation theory advanced by Polemis was the focus of much debate by English courts, lawyers and professors for over forty years. Then came the Wagon Mound cases. A Variation of the Risk Rule - foreseeable plaintiffs Palsgraf v.
Lets change the facts a little .
What if Mrs. Palsgraf was waiting for a train, standing only about 10 ft. from the site of the explosion, which was violent enough to cause a stampede, as well as extensive damage to the train station and to at least 13 people. For several days, the building's intercom system had not worked and Dogbert knew of the defective intercom. One evening, the bell rang in Dilbert's apartment and Dilbert had to take the stairs to let his visitor in. Dilbert sustained injuries when he fell down the stairs on his way to the building entrance door to admit the visitor. Dilbert has admitted to you that the stairs were not defective but he believes that his injuries were the result of the defective intercom which Dogbert had not repaired despite repeated complains by Dilbert and other tenants.