 | Henry Clay Brubaker, Charles Israel Landis, George Ross Eshleman, Issac Clinton Arnold - 1921 - 632 pages
...unskillfulness was 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... | |
 | Henry Taylor Terry - 1884 - 736 pages
...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... | |
 | 1884 - 542 pages
...the risk, knowing (he danger, he Is guilty of contributory negligence and is precluded from recovery. In determining what is proximate cause the true rule...injury must be the natural and probable consequence ol the negligence; such a consequence as, under the circumstances of the case, might and ought to have... | |
 | 1884 - 246 pages
...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 ,... | |
 | 1892 - 1150 pages
...the 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... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1885 - 912 pages
...that the defendant company should have known it ? For unless he can establish this he cannot recover. In determining what is proximate cause the true rule...must be the natural and probable consequence of the negliPittsburgh Southern Railway Company v. Taylor. gence, such a consequence as under the surrounding... | |
 | Horace Gay Wood - 1885 - 804 pages
...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... | |
 | 1915 - 1128 pages
...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... | |
 | 1887 - 972 pages
...this rule stated, — the rulealso of Railroad v. Kerr: " That, in determining what is proximity of cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Measured again by this rule, and the plaintiff's case fails; for, while the supervisors might have... | |
| |
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... 
