 | Lawrence Lewis, Adelbert Hamilton, John Houston Merrill, William Mark McKinney, James Manford Kerr, John Crawford Thomson - 1833 - 812 sider
...353, and Railroad Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. St. 373, laid down the rule as to proximate cause as follows: " In determining what is proximate cause, the true rule...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." Applying this rule to the facts of the present case, can it be said that the injury of Mrs. Trich was... | |
 | Illinois. Supreme Court - 1915 - 718 sider
...negligent act or omission should foresee the precise form of the injury, to constitute proximate cause the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence and be of such a character as an ordinarily prudent person ought to have foreseen might probably occur... | |
 | 1888 - 556 sider
...373, laid down the rule as to proximate canse as follows : "In determining what is proximate canse, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural...foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his sot." Applying this rule to the facts of the present case, can it be said that the injury of Mrs. Trich... | |
 | 1892 - 582 sider
...accident was not the proximate cause. The rule ou this subject is as follows: "In dctermining what is the proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury...circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been seen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Hailwuy Co. v. Taylor, 104 Penn. St. 306; Township... | |
 | 1879 - 540 sider
...sparks or burning coals from defendants' locomotive. The rule for determining what its proxinoate cause Is, that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act in the first instance, and that it might and ought to have been foreseen under the circumstances.... | |
 | 1876 - 972 sider
...of the cause of the injury. The rule for determining what is a proximate cause may be stated thus : that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, and that this consequence might and ought to have been foreseen under the surrounding circumstances.... | |
 | 1877 - 558 sider
...probable, consequence of the negligence of defendants. The rule for determining what is proximate cause is, that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, ami that it might and ought to have been foreseen under the circumstances. (Peniwylvania Railroad Co.... | |
 | 1878 - 560 sider
...substantially recognized in The Railroad Company v. Kerr, and The Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa proximo, non remota spectator; it only affects its application.... | |
 | North Carolina. Supreme Court - 1878 - 692 sider
...<f NWRW Co 26 Wis. 224. 2. The damage, was it proximate or remote? To render the defendant liable, the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might or <">ught to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to result from his act. But where a fire... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1879 - 884 sider
...substantially recognized in The Railroad Company v. Kerr, and T7ie Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule...the negligence — such a consequence as, under the surroundDoreey v. Abrams. ing circumstances of the case, might and ought to hsivc been foreseen by... | |
| |
In determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the... 
