...Railroad Company, 85 Pa. 293, 27 Am. Rep. 653, Paxson, CJ, states It to be the true rule in such cases "that the Injury must be the natural and probable...circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act" In Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Kerr,...

...defendant must have been the proximate cause of the accident, resulting in the injuries to the plaintiff. The injury must be the natural and probable consequence...under the surrounding circumstances of the case might or ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." The charge, as a whole,...

...such an act that the injury is the natural and probable sequence of negligence,— such a sequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. Unless the injury is produced In that way,...

...reasonable degree of foresight would suppose likely to happen. I hid. 32. To render the defendant liable, the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, such as under the circumstances ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer, as the natural consequence...

...Varnau were the natural and probable consequence of the negligence of the defendant, or its servants, such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and should have been foreseen by the servant as likely to flow from his carelessness, and there was no...

...responsibility quite beyond any legal limitations which have yet been declared." 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...

...id. 353, and Railroad Co. v. ffope, 80 id. 373, laid down the rule as to proximate cause as follows : "In determining what is proximate cause, the true...circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Tested by this rule, the negligence and...

...and Railroad Co. v. Hope, 80 Penn. St. 379, laid down the rule as to proximate cause as follows: " In determining what is proximate cause the true rule...circumstances of the case might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Tested by this rule the negligence and...

...vol. 22, § 32; Clark v. Wallace, 51 Colo. 437, 118 Рас. 973, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 355 and note. [4] In determining what Is proximate cause, the true rule...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...

...near to a public road or way as to constitute a publiu nuisance: Hounstll v. Smyth, 1 CBNS 731. 6. In determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural — a probable, consequence of the negligence : Hoag v. Lake Shore RB, 85 Pa. St. '293. 7. Knowledge...