...Wright & Hudson, for appellee. SERVERS, J. 1. The material question presented in this record is whether the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. The evidence tended to show that the rails spread, and a portion of the...

...the circumstances exist which create such a duty: 111 US 228; 129 Mass. 364. The question of whether the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury should have been submitted to the jury: 94 US 469; 109 SC 122; LR 3 CP 216, 222, 591 ; LR 5 HL 45 ;...

...case as above, delivered the opinion of the court. The crucial question in this case is whether or not the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury of the plaintiff, so that, in the legal acceptation of that term, it contributed to her hurt. "Causo...

...afterwards performed, and the suffering occasioned thereby, then and in that case I charge you that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury, for which jihiintiff seeks to recover damages." The court refused to give these requested instructions,...

...Wright & Hudson, for appellee. SEEVERS, J. 1. The material question presented in this record is whether the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. The evidence tended to show that the rails spread, and a portion of the...

...& Hudson,, for appellee. SEEVEES, J. — The material question presented in this record is whether the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. The evidence tended to show that the rails spread, and a portion of the...

...the gist of the action is negligence, and the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to prove that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. Upon an examination ot the whole case, we fail to find the slightest evidence that the injury complained...

...cases, all you can say is what one says in advising, that it is a question for a jury whether the act or the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury or loss, and even that docs not help you much, because the finding of the jury is almost always appealed...

...of negligence in allowing fire to escape from its locomotive and spread upon plaintiff's land. * * * The negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff's meadow." • It will be observed that the verdict rests upon a theory The Chicago,...

...except in the clearest of cases." Unless there was a clear absence of evidence tending to show that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury, or unless it was clearly established by the evidence that the negligence of the plaintiff contributed...