The Probable or the Natural Consequence as the Test of Liability in Negligence

Abstract

The cases decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania seem to indicate in a cursory reading that the measure of damages in actions of negligence differs from that in other torts.The usual test of a negligent wrongdoer's liability for the results of his wrong in these cases is that announced by Paxson, J., in Hoag v. R. R. :1 "The injury must be the natural consequence of the negligence-such a consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the case might and ought to have been foreseen by the wrongdoer as likely to flow from his act."This of itself would indicate that in such cases the wrongdoer's responsibility for the consequences of his act was to be restricted to his reasonable anticipations.This is more nearly the measure of damages in contract than in torts other than negligence.In such torts the wrongdoer must answer for all the natural consequences of his wrong until the chain of cause and effect be broken by the intervention of some new, outside, independent force breaking" the chain and diverting the consequences to some new and different end."An efficient adequate cause being found must be considered the true cause, unless some other cause, not incident to it, but independent of it, is shown to have intervened between it and the result: Dixon, C. J., Kellogg v. R. R. 2 The obligation is one imposed by law upon all members of the community, in order to protect their fellow-members from the injurious consequence of acts prohibited, because they invade some absolute right, or are of a class which usually causes damage to the person or property of such fellow-members.They in return receive similar protection from the usually injurious acts of others.Where such a " 85 Pa.293 (298).'26 Wis.223.