Summary

| portal Washburn v. Farmers’ Insurance Company (1880)

It is only when the causes are independent of each other that the nearest is, of course, to be charged with the disaster.” The rule of law announced in the foregoing case, by the learned justice, is clearly applicable to the present case.
If, therefore, the evidence satisfies your minds that there existed a fire in this mill, and the fire produced an explosion, the fire would be the proximate cause.
Source: Wikisource

| portal Washburn v. Farmers’ Insurance Company (1880)

The defendant, by its contract, agreed to indemnify the plaintiff against damage and loss by fire to the building and machinery of a flouring mill. Whatever may, therefore, be necessarily connected with the building and machinery, in their use in the manufacture of flour, or growing necessarily out of and resulting from such use, by which the property would be rendered more liable to fire than ordinary property, must be held to have been in the contemplation of the defendant at the time of the issuing of the policy, and it must be held to have been contracted in reference thereto
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature