...Railroad Co., 85 Pa. St. 293, to these facts, the question on which the case turns is : " Was the injury the natural and probable consequence of the negligence...consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act?" As concerns...

...determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural and porbable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence...under the surrounding circumstances of the case might and ought to be foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act: Hoag v. The Railroad Co.,...

...have happened, it may be attributed to all or any of these causes.2 But in all cases the true rule. is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, such as, under the circumstances, would have been foreseen by a person of average competence and knowledge,...

...consequence of the defendant's acts (Ryan v. Railroad Co., 35 NY 210; Railroad Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176); such a consequence 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. The court, in Jex...

...MSRR, supra, the Pennsylvania court say: "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 foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." In C., St. PM & ORR...

...Railroad Company, 85 Penn. St. 293, 298, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said : " 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 wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." The question in this...

...action for a wilful tort, it was said that In determining what Is proxlcqate cause the general 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 wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. And in Renner v. Canfleld,...

...case is governed by its own peculiar facts. The injury must be the natural and probable consequences of the negligence, such a consequence 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. But where an accident...

...liability is for them to adjust between themselves. 3. In determining what is proximate cause, the rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence. When two causes combine to produce an injury, the one being a culpable defect in the street, and the...

...being that In order to recover for an injury alleged to have resulted from the negligence of another, the Injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence; or, as otherwise stated, the wrong and the resulting damage must be known by common experience to be...