...injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as, under the circumstances of the case, might and ought to have...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act: Weat UahcMay Tp. v. Walton, 116 Pa. St. 3 14; 2 Am. St Rep. 604, and note collecting previous cases...

...cause remanded. — PROXIMATE CAUSE. — In determining what U proximity of cause, tbe true rule is, that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as, nnder the circumstances of the case, might and onght to have been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely...

...(Fourth assignment of error. ^ ft. That the defendant can only be held liable for results as under the circumstances of the case might and ought to have been foreseen by the conductor could result from the plaintiffs getting off the train, and that the plaintiffs would get...

...avoided by adhering to the principle that, in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." The facts in the case to which this language was applied were that an oil train on defendant's railway...

...The rule on this subject is as follows: 'In determining what is the 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 seen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act. Tested by this rule, we regard the injury as...

..."The true rule is that the injury must be the natural ami probable consequence ot the (defendant's) negligence — such a consequence, as, under the surrounding...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa proximo non remote spectatur; it only affects its application."...

...the question is one for the court, and that in determining what is proximate cause the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, such consequence, as under the surrounding circumstances of the case, might and ought to have been foreseen...

...it applies to negligent acts, is that, "in determining what is the proximate cause, the trne rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence: Hoag r. Lake Shore etc. Ry. Co., 85 Pa. St. 293; 27 Am. Rep. 653; Pennsylvania RR Co. v. Ken; 62 Pa....

...applied by the courts of the United States. Thus, in a leading case it was said : "The true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the (defendant's) negligence — such a consequence, as, under the surrounding circumstances of the case,...

...Railroad Co., 85 Pa. St. 293, 298, 299, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said : "The true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence...foreseen by the wrongdoer, as likely to flow from the act." The question in this case, then, is, was it the natural and probable consequence of the statement...