 | Illinois. Supreme Court - 1915 - 718 str.
...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... | |
 | 1879 - 540 str.
...sparks or burning coals from defendants' locomotive. The rule for determining what its proxinoate cause Is, that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act in the first instance, and that it might and ought to have been foreseen under the circumstances.... | |
 | 1876 - 972 str.
...of the cause of the injury. The rule for determining what is a proximate cause may be stated thus : that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, and that this consequence might and ought to have been foreseen under the surrounding circumstances.... | |
 | 1877 - 558 str.
...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, ami that it might and ought to have been foreseen under the circumstances. (Peniwylvania Railroad Co.... | |
 | 1878 - 560 str.
...Company v. Kerr, and The Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural...and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa proximo, non remota spectator;... | |
 | North Carolina. Supreme Court - 1878 - 692 str.
...<f NWRW Co 26 Wis. 224. 2. The damage, was it proximate or remote? To render the defendant liable, the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might or <">ught to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to result from his act. But where a fire... | |
 | Isaac Grant Thompson - 1879 - 884 str.
...Company v. Kerr, and T7ie Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural...the negligence — such a consequence as, under the surroundDoreey v. Abrams. ing circumstances of the case, might and ought to hsivc been foreseen by... | |
 | 1879 - 582 str.
...must determine whether the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence — euch a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances...might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. What would be more quickly apprehended by one setting fire to dry leaves... | |
 | 1905 - 1124 str.
...of the attending circumstances." In Hoag v. Railroad Co., 85 Pa. 293, 27 Am. Rep. 653, it is said : "The true rule Is that the injury must be the natural...might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from the act." In the light of these and other authorities, and the undisputed evidence... | |
| |
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... 
