West Mahanoy Township v. Watson

Citations

• 116 Pa. 344
• 9 A. 430
• 1887 Pa. LEXIS 398

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action for negligence the proximate and not the remote cause of the injury suffered is to be considered; and this is controlled not by time or distance, but by the succession of events. The question is, did the cause alleged produce the injury without another cause intervening, or by means of an intervening cause ?</p> <p>2. To determine that a negligent act was the proximate cause of the injury, the rule is that the injury must have been the natural and probable consequence of the negligence; such a consequence as under the circumstances of the case might and ought to have been foreseen by the defendant as likely to flow from his act.</p> <p>3. When in an action for negligence the question arises whether the act complained of was the proximate or the remote cause of the injury, if the facts are disputed the question is for the jury, but if the facts are not disputed the question is one for the court.</p> <p>4. A pair of horses and sleigh, driven after dark, struck an ash heap negligently left on a township road and the sleigh was overturned. The horses being frightened thereby, ran off the road and upon a railroad track. . Overtaken by a train they were driven from the track, changed their course and ran along the track in an opposite direction, when they were struck by another train and killed. In an action against the township for damages, Held:</p> <p>That the facts being undisputed, the court should have instructed the jury that the negligent act of the township was the remote and not the proximate cause of the loss of the horses, and for this loss the township was not liable.</p>