 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
 | 1920 - 1206 sider
...Рас. 973, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 355 and note. [4] In determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act — such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to... | |
 | 1920 - 904 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... | |
 | 1921 - 1852 sider
...Rep. 1392, 15 LRA (NS) 740. (Me.1906) In determining the question of proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence. — Marsh v. Great Northern Paper Co., 64 A. 844, 101 Me. 4S9. (Mass.1915) Plaintiff need only prove... | |
 | 1921 - 1636 sider
...into by a runaway horse and wagon, the court applied the rule that, "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... | |
 | Ralph Stanley Bauer - 1923 - 792 sider
...Hudson River RR Co., 209 Pa. 128, 131, 58 Atl. 160, 161, it was said: ' ' The rule is well settled that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligent act without probable foresight, and if the facts as to the cause of the injury are not disputed,... | |
 | 1922 - 1408 sider
...(NS) 819, 220 111. 300. 82 NE 302. a2. In determining what is the proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligent act. Anderson v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 51 LRA (NS) 888, 74 W. Va. 17, 81 SE 579. b. The natural... | |
 | 1922 - 1096 sider
...580), the court used the following language : "In determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." It was laid down by Lord Ellenborough in 1807 in Vicars v. Wilcocks, 8 East, 1, that a man is answerable... | |
 | 1905 - 1052 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,... | |
 | Virginia. Supreme Court of Appeals - 1926 - 1068 sider
...nearness Syllabus. in causal relation. For negligence to constitute the proximate cause of an injury, the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, or wrongful act, and the consequence such as ought to have been foreseen in the light of the attending... | |
 | 1892 - 556 sider
...236 THE CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL. 237 follows: uln determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been seen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from bis act. Railway Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. St. 306; Township... | |
| |
