...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...

...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 of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." It seems to me more...

...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...under the surrounding circumstances of the case might and ought to have been forseen by the wrongdoers as likely to follow from his act. (Railroad Company...

...unless 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 of the negliPittsburgh Southern Railway Company v. Taylor. gence, such a consequence as under the surrounding...

...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 of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the actor as likely to flow from his act ; and that where, owing...

...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...

...the rulealso of Railroad v. Kerr: " That, in determining what is proximity of cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Measured again by...

...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,...