| Illinois. Supreme Court - 1915 - 718 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... | |
| 1892 - 582 pages
...rule ou this subject is as follows: "In dctermining what is the proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Hailwuy Co. v. Taylor, 104 Penn. St. 306; Township of West Mahanoy v. Watson, 112 id. 574. Tested by... | |
| 1879 - 540 pages
...spectator. * * »* In all, or nearly all cases, the rule for determining what is a 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 circumstances. These are... | |
| 1876 - 972 pages
...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 pages
...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 pages
...Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural [and probable consequence...circumstances of the case, might 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... | |
| North Carolina. Supreme Court - 1878 - 692 pages
...<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 pages
...Railroad Company v. Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...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 pages
...must determine whether the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence — euch 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. What would be more quickly apprehended by... | |
| |