Talk:Proximate cause

message: A concurrent cause is listed as a circumstance in which the "but for" test is ineffective. The section provides the following example: "[A] construction worker negligently leaves the cover off a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian."  Is the "but for" test ineffective in this example?  But for the missing manhole, the injury would not have occurred.  Also, but for the careless driving, the injury would not have occurred.  The fact that another condition was also needed does not seem to make the "but for" test ineffective.  (Note that this other condition could also be another party's nontortious behaviour or even a natural condition.)  I have not modified the article, as I thought some discussion might be warranted first.--Rpclod (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concurrent Cause

message: I have removed the following reference to Condoleezza Rice from the article, as it seems waaay off topic:
*Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice*
:Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has begun using the phrase/concept of proximate cause to explain the Iraq War instead of immediately going after the perpetrators of the September 11th Attacks:
:" The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda ... or we could take a bolder approach."
:http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/16/rice-after-9-11/
This is, in my opinion, a blip that has nothing to do with the law of proximate cause. I'll gladly entertain arguments as to why it should be included.  BD2412 talk 15:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Condoleeza Rice reference removed

message: Reasons for the merge have not been proposed here, and as there has been no response after more than four weeks, I am removing the merge proposal. What is more appropriate here is for Proximate cause to be moved to Proximate cause (law), and Proximate causation to become a disambiguation page with a link to Proximate cause (law) as it currently refers to uses of the notion in both Philosophy and Ethology. Following this I will write a move request for Proximate cause. Tug201 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus for moving. --Dijxtra 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose.  Proximate cause in law is the better known usage because besides its common use among lawyers, it actually gets mentioned on TV and in magazines, unlike proximate cause in philosophy (I wasn't aware that such a thing existed).  --Coolcaesar 01:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I know this won't keep it from being tidied out of existence, but I love the parenthetical interjection addressed to Immanuel Kant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.146.16 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Immanuel Kant