...to be deemed the proximate cause of an injury, nn'ess the injury was snch a consequence of the act as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen or anticipated by an ordinarily reasonable and prudent man, as reasonably likely to flow from the act....

...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...case, might and ought to have been foreseen by the wroug-doer, as likely to now from his act. " Applying this rule to th.- facts of the present case,...

...injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, — such a consequence as * * * might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." The three leading cases above referred to, though frequently cited on opposite sides of the same argument,...

...Paxson, J., to be " 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 benn foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Hoag ». Lake Shore & MSRR Co., 85...

...Varnau were the natural and probable consequence of the negligence of the defendant, or its servants, such a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and should have been foreseen by the servant as likely to flow from his carelessness, and there was no...

...is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the [defendant's] negligence — such a consequence, as, under the surrounding circumstances...foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa proximo, non remota spectatur; it only affects its application."...

...The injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as .... might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act" The three leading cases above referred to, though frequently cited on opposite sides of the same argument,...

...The injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence — such a consequence as might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kerr, 62 Pa. 353; Pennsylvania R. Co. V.Hope, 80 Pa. 373; Hoag v. Lake Shore...

...cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the ftegligence, such a consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the case might and ought to have been seen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act:" Railway Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 306 ; Township...

...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 seen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." Pittsburgh Southern R. Co. r. Taylor, 104 Fa....