...of the proximate cause." In Hoag z: Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway, 85 Pa., 293, it is said: "The injury must be the natural and probable consequence...the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." In Wallace v. Keystone Auto Co., 239 Pa., no, proximate cause is defined as follows : " The proximate...

...true rule Is, that the Injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence ; sucha consequence as under the surrounding circumstances...the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act.' In view of the testimony in this case, the court could not undertake to decide that the trespass had no...

...the proximate cause of the injury complained of. In determining what is proximate cause, the rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence : Robb v. Penna. Company, 186 Pa. 456. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the injury resulted...

...property, which was set on fire and destroyed. It was held that the damage was too remote, it not being " such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." It seems to me more correct to say that in the circumstances the engineer owed no duty to the plaintiff...

...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, and that it might and ought to have been forseen under the circumstances. " It is for you to say ,...

...defendant. * * * In all, or nearly all, cases the rule for determining what isa proximate cause is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, and that this might and ought to have been foreseen under the surrounding oircuni4tnnc'es. These are...

...he can establish this, he cannot recover. In 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 forseen by the wrongdoers as likely to follow from his act. (Railroad Company v. Kerr, 12 PFS 353;...

...was held that an act is not to be considered the proximate cause of an injury, unless the injury was such a consequence as under the surrounding circumstances...case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the actor as likely to flow from his act ; and that where, owing to failure of the engineer of an oil train...

...in reality, a breach of contract made by the company to transport the pas^ senger safely ; secondly, that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the accident, or negligence of the company or its employes, and not of casual or unexpected causes intervening...

...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...