 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...  Atlantic Reporter - Side 721904Uten tilgangsbegrensning - Om denne boken
 | 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... | |
 | 1879 - 582 sider
...must determine whether the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence — euch a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances...foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. What would be more quickly apprehended by one setting fire to dry leaves and brush, than that it would... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1879 - 884 sider
...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 consequence...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
...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 consequence...been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from the act." In the light of these and other authorities, and the undisputed evidence in these cases,... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1881 - 896 sider
...for the jury, who must determine whether the injury was the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. McEeen. natural and probable consequence of the negligence,...foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. What would be more quickly apprehended, by one setting fire to dry leaves and brush, than that it would... | |
 | 1882 - 264 sider
...the proximate cause of an accident is that "the injury must be the natural and probable consequences of the negligence, such a consequence as under the...circumstances of the case might and ought to have been seen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." — City of Lancaster i'. Kissinger, 13 Lancaster... | |
 | 1917 - 258 sider
...natural and probable result of defendant's negligence. See King v. Lehigh Valley RR Co., 245 Pa. 25. as- under the surrounding circumstances of the case might and ought to be foreseen by the wrong doer as likely to flow from his acts;" Swansbn v. Crandall, supra; while such... | |
 | Charles Cole Hine, Walter S. Nichols - 1882 - 820 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.... | |
 | Lawrence Lewis, Adelbert Hamilton, John Houston Merrill, William Mark McKinney, James Manford Kerr, John Crawford Thomson - 1883 - 760 sider
...promotive cause, as defined by law. " That in determining what is proximity of cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Township of West Mahonoy v. Watson, (Sup. Ct. Pa., May 9, 1887.) 9 Atl. Rep. 433. In the case of Hoag... | |
| |
