...cause as follows: " In determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." Applying this rule to the facts of the present case, can it be said that the injury of Mrs. Trich was...

...canse as follows : "In determining what is proximate canse, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence,...foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his sot." Applying this rule to the facts of the present case, can it be said that the injury of Mrs. Trich...

...as a consequence likely to flow from his negligence In not looking out and seeing the land slide." " It is manifest that the negligence was the remote...in its pathway? There is no error in the answer to defendants' fourth point; besides, in the general charge on this matter, the court called attention...

...stated in many cases: ''In determining what is proximate cause the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence;...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act": Hoag v. R. R. Co., supra; Pass. Ry. Co. v. Trich, 117 Pa. 39O; Swanson v. Crandall, 2 Pa. Super. Ct....

...Hope, supra, that in determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural [and probable consequence of the negligence,...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa proximo, non remota spectator; it only affects its application....

...must determine whether the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence — euch a consequence as, under the surrounding circumstances...than that it would run before the wind and consume properly in its pathway? There is no error in the answer to the defendant's fourth point; besides,...

...consequence as, under the surroundDoreey v. Abrams. ing circumstances of the case, might and ought to hsivc been foreseen by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act. This is not a limitation of the maxim causa proxima non remota tpectatur; it only affects its application....

...v. Railroad Co., 85 Pa. 293, 27 Am. Rep. 653, it is said : "The true rule Is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence...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 these cases,...

...determining what is proximate cause, the true rule is, that the injury must be the natural andprobable consequence of the negligence ; such a consequence...by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act." In view of the testimony in this case, the court could not undertake to ilecide that the trespass had...

...by law. " That in determining what is proximity of cause, the true rule is that the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence...by the wrong-doer as likely to flow from his act." Township of West Mahonoy v. Watson, (Sup. Ct. Pa., May 9, 1887.) 9 Atl. Rep. 433. In the case of Hoag...