 | 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... | |
 | 1892 - 582 sider
...probable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as, under the surrounding 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 of West Mahanoy v. Watson, 112 id. 574. Tested by... | |
 | 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
...and The Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural [and probable...negligence, such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow... | |
 | 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...negligence, — such a consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might or <">ught to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to result... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1879 - 884 sider
...and T7ie Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable...the negligence — such a consequence as, under the surroundDoreey v. Abrams. ing circumstances of the case, might and ought to hsivc been foreseen by... | |
 | 1905 - 1124 sider
...attending circumstances." In Hoag v. Railroad Co., 85 Pa. 293, 27 Am. Rep. 653, it is said : "The true rule Is that the injury must be the natural and probable...negligence — such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow... | |
| |
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... 
