...probable consequence of the negligence — such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act?" * * * The rule quoted in Hoag v. Railroad Co., supra, is, in substance, the conclusion of Lord Bacon,...

...Railroad Co., 85 Pa. 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 wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act?" The rule quoted...

...Bloomsburg & SR Co injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence charged — such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances...to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to follow from his act. Township of West Mahanoy v. Watson, 112 Pa. 574, 3 Atl. 866, .Vi Am. Rep. 336....

...Hamman v. Ry. Co., 45 Ohio St. 11 ; Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Shields, 47 Ohio St. 387, 8 LRA 464. cause the true rule is that the injury must be the...foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act."1 Thus where some person stole an engine of a railroad company and maliciously started it along...

...not to be controlled by time or distance, but by the succession of events.' " Thus it will be seen that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. Should then...

...determining what is proximate cause the NORTHUMBERLAND LEGAL JOURNAL 309 HAFFLEY v. MARKLEY, ET. AL. true rule is that the injury must be the natural and...consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as, under thei surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer...

...were negligent in this respect, but to her fainting when she saw her two children going up in the car. "In determining what is proximate cause, the true...circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been seen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. Co., 151 NY 107, 45...

...question propounded. In determining whether an act of a defendant is the proximate cause of an injury, the rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act — such a consequence, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, as might and ought to...

...between the original act or omission and the injurious consequences. 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...

...71. "In Pittsburg Southern R. Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 315, 49 Am. Kep. 580, Mr. Justice Paxson said: 'In determining what is proximate cause, the true...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act.' In Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 139, Colt, J., said: 'The injury must be the direct result of...