For the purposes of determining liability, the consequences of wrongful conduct are divided into proximate consequences, and remote consequences. Compensation can be recovered for losses which are the proximate consequences of wrongful conduct, but not for losses which are the remote consequences.1

These different classes of consequences shade into each other, and a test of remoteness which can be applied in all cases has not yet been found.

"The question as to what is the direct or proximate cause of an injury is ordinarily not one of science or legal knowledge, but of fact, for a jury to determine in view of the accompanying circumstances."2

One of the best tests yet advanced has been that of the "most conspicuous antecedent," suggested by John Stuart Mill. "The cause of an event is the sum total of the contingencies of every description, which, being realized, the event invariably follows. It is rarely if ever, that the invariable sequence of events subsists between one antecedent and one consequent. Ordinarily, that condition is usually termed the cause whose share in the matter is most conspicuous, and is the most immediately preceding and proximate to the event."3

1 See Hale on Damages, p. 34. 2 Schumaker vs. St. Paul and D. R. Co., 46 Minn.,39,48 N. W.,559.

3 Moulton vs. Inhabitants of San-ford, 51 Me., 127, 134.